ORDER : This petition is to quash an award of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, declining to reinstate 9 workmen. They were all employed along with others under Theatre Royal. With effect from 1st April, 1961, he Theatre was leased out by a registered document to the Royal Arts. It is common ground, in fact it has been found by the Labour Court—that on 2nd April, 1961, some of the workmen under the previous management applied for employment under the new management, and nine out of them were taken into service. The workmen under Theatre Royal claimed retrenchment compensation and obtained it from their employer. But the employees of the Royal Arts, through their Union, raised a dispute as to the propriety of the non-employment of the nine workmen left out, which eventually was referred under S. 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication by the Labour Court. The ground of the workmen was that the lease deed was only a make-believe document, and there was no real closure, The Labour Court found, on the evidence before it, that this case was not made out. In its view, the registered lease was a genuine transaction and there was, in fact, a closure. A further claim of the workmen was that, during the conciliation proceedings, it was agreed that the 9 remaining workmen would also be absorbed in service under the Royal Arts provided they applied for it, and that the new management had refused to entertain them in service. On this point, the Labour Court was of the view that, since under the new management the workmen affected were not employed, there could be no question of their re-instatement. On behalf of the management it would appear to have been contended that there was no industrial dispute at all. But finding that nine out of the workmen employed under the old management were taken into service under the new management and through their Union they raised the dispute, the Labour Court rejected the management's contention. This petition is by the Union to quash the order of the Labour Court. Mr. But finding that nine out of the workmen employed under the old management were taken into service under the new management and through their Union they raised the dispute, the Labour Court rejected the management's contention. This petition is by the Union to quash the order of the Labour Court. Mr. Dolia for the petitioner contends that when a volume of evidence was let in before the Labour Court on the question whether there was a real closure, the Labour Court merely on the ground that the lease deed was a registered document, found that the lease was a genuine transaction, and that the failure on the part of the Tribunal to apply its mind to the evidence for the workmen in arriving at a conclusion on that question vitiated the award. I am not satisfied that this contention is made out. It is true that, from the list of documents, it appears that a number of documents were put in evidence by the workmen. It is also true that the Labour Court has not specifically referred to any of these documents. But that in itself, in my opinion, will not be conclusive. It may be seen, the question whether there was a real closure or not or whether the lease deed was a genuine document or not, is a question of fact, and a finding thereon cannot be reviewed in certiorari. It cannot be assumed that merely because the Labour Court failed to specifically refer to the evidence adduced for the workmen, on that ground, the factual finding is vitiated and can be reviewed in certiorari. The jurisdiction of this Court in certiorari is not appellate in character. The finding of the Tribunal as to closure should, therefore, stand. The next contention for the petitioner is that, since the new management had agreed during conciliation proceedings to re-instate workmen in question, the Labour Court was wrong in proceeding on the assumption that the agreement could not furnish a basis for re-instatement. It is said that the agreement was reached as a result of an industrial dispute and in the course of conciliation in respect of it, and that being the case, it would be competent for the Labour Court to direct re-instatement on the basis of the agreement. It is said that the agreement was reached as a result of an industrial dispute and in the course of conciliation in respect of it, and that being the case, it would be competent for the Labour Court to direct re-instatement on the basis of the agreement. But the simple answer to the question, in my opinion, would be that there can be no question of re-instatement, unless it is established that the nine workmen were previously employed under the new management. Since the finding that the closure was a genuine one is left undisputed, it follows that the nine workmen had nothing to do with the new management. If that is so, the Labour Court was right in its view that no re-instatement could be ordered. I may also say that the Labour Court was right following the principle in Odeon Cinema v. Workers of Sagar Talkies((1954-1955) L.L.J. 314). The petition is dismissed, but with no costs.