( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner Mysore Provincial Silk Handloom weavers Co-operative Society Ltd. , has challenged the legality of the order passed by the Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, in reforence no. 115 1979. The Labour Court is the 1st respondent herein. ( 2 ) THE 2nd respondent had been employed by the petitioner Society even before or about the year 1967 as a Junior Assistant. He was kept under suspension on 17. 8. 1967 on the ground that he was responsible for some shortage of goods in the Society's sales Emporium at Malleswaram. Subsequently, his services were also terminated on 8. 4. 1978 without holding an enquiry. Thereafter, the Society started a dispute under See. 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act before the Registrar, claiming a sum of Rs. 2924 13 as due from the 2nd respondent. That dispute was started, somewhere in the years 1968-69 and the dispute came to be rejected somewhere in the year 1977 or 1978. ( 3 ) IMMEDIATELY thereafter the 2nd respondent raised a dispute in regard to the termination of services which ended in reference No. 115|1978 before the Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. ( 4 ) IN the claim statement 2nd respondent had prayed, that his termination in the year 1967 should be held to be unlawful as violating the rules of natural justice, and, in the alternative he prayed that his emplayer. Society should reinstate him on the same terms and conditions contained in the "letter of the Society dated 20-7-1977 addressed to him on his representation, awarding consequential back-wages from 23. 7. 1977 ( 5 ) THE petitioner-Society remained absent, though served in the proceeding before the 1st respondent additional Labour Court. After recording evidence of respondent-2 who was first party before the 1st respondent-Labour Court, the Labour Court came to thq conclusion that it could not grant him reinstatement and back-wages from 8. 4. 1968, the date on which the 2nd respondent was originally dismissed by the petitioner-Society. However, it held 'that he was entitled to reinstatement in terms of the letter of the Society dated 20. 7. 1977 with back wages at 50% frqm 6. 3. 78 the, date of reinstatement. Against the said order, the petitioner-Society has preferred, this writ petition under Art. 226 (1) (b) and (c) of the Constitution. However, it held 'that he was entitled to reinstatement in terms of the letter of the Society dated 20. 7. 1977 with back wages at 50% frqm 6. 3. 78 the, date of reinstatement. Against the said order, the petitioner-Society has preferred, this writ petition under Art. 226 (1) (b) and (c) of the Constitution. ( 6 ) SEVERAL contentions have been raised by Shri Subramanya Jois, learned Counsel for ,the petitioner. But these contentions do not relate to the question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal which has passed the impugned order. They are questions relating to the fads decided by the Tribunal. Having remained exparte in the proceedings before the Additional labour Court, it is not open to the peaitioner-Society to canvas for the first time before this Court questions of fact when there is no error of jurisdiction or no o,ther apparent error of law manifest in, the impugned order. This Court, as is well settled, does not act as a Court of appeal while exercising its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. ( 7 ) HENCE, this writ petition is rejected without issuing rule. --- *** --- .