JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - This is an application by the employer, the Cuttack Municipal Council, seeking a writ of certiorari for the quashing of an award passed by the Labour Court declaring the terminations of the service of 28 mates with effect from 30-4-1980 by the management as illegal and unjustified and directing their reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. 2. The case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that opposite parties 2 to 29 were appointed as mates purely on temporary basis by council resolution dated 2-4-1979. They were to work under the elected ward councillors. There was an understanding that their service would be terminated at any time without notice. They were required to appraise the ward councillors the day-to-day problems of the wards. They were appointed on the recommendation of the respective ward councillors. When the council was suspended and later on superseded by the Government with effect from 24-4-1980, there was no necessity for the mates who were assisting the councillors, to continue. Accordingly, their services were terminated with effect from 30-4-1980. The workmen on the other hand averred that they were appointed on daily wage basis with effect from 3-4-1979 pursuant to a council resolution. Each of them had been assigned to a particular ward and his service was placed under the ward councillor. They were to supervise the work of the Coolies and Ma/doors engaged in the sanitation and conservancy work. They were to maintain daily diary of their work which was supervised by the Sanitary Inspectors and respective ward councillors. As Coolies and Mazdoors had been engaged on regular basis but these opposite parties had been engaged on daily wage basis, the Municipal Council adopted a resolution dated 23-2-1980 to regularise their service conditions. When the council was superseded, their services were terminated without payment of retrenchment compensation contrary to Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. Having regard to the nature of the dispute that cropped up, the Government made a reference, namely, if the termination of the service of the mates with effect from 1-5-1980 by the management of Cuttack Municipality, was legal and/or justified and if not, what relief they would be entitled to ? 4. Both the parties adduced evidence before the Labour Court. 4. Both the parties adduced evidence before the Labour Court. Upon a consideration of the materials, the Labour Court recorded the following findings:- (a) termination of the service of opposite parties 2 to 29 amounted to retrenchment; (b) there was non-compliance of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, and (c) the termination was, therefore, invalid and the workmen were entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuity of service. 5. Mr. M.R. Panda, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has assailed the decision of the Labour Court contending that the Labour Court erred in exercise of jurisdiction by its failure, to take into account the facts and circumstances which indicated that the case was one of closure of the establishment beyond the control of the employer and Section 25FFF and not Section 25F was applicable to the present case. Mr. S.B. Nanda, learned counsel for the workmen, has repelled the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners by submitting that it is impermissible to the petitioners to plead a new case when such a case, as urged before this Court, was not pleaded by them. The Labour Court upon assessment of materials has recorded certain findings which are not available to be impugned in the certiorari jurisdiction. 6. The Labour Court has succinctly reproduced the case of the management. For facility of reference, we quote the relevant averments: "3. That after suspensions/supersession of elected Council with effect from 24-4-1980 there was no necessity for these workmen to appraise of daily problem of the ward to the concerned councillor and accordingly their services were terminated with effect from 30-4-1980 afternoon. 4. That the post of temporary mates were created by the Council specifically to work under the elected Ward Councillors for appraising the daily problem of the ward, and their engagements were made on the recommendation of the concerned Ward Councillors. 5. That in view of the above there was no justification to allow them to work under the Councillors since elected Council ceased to function due to supersession by the Councillors". 5. That in view of the above there was no justification to allow them to work under the Councillors since elected Council ceased to function due to supersession by the Councillors". The Labour Court on an appraisal of the evidence held: "....From this, it is apparent that the second-party workmen were engaged not only for appraising the daily problems of the wards to their respective Councillors every day and to act according to their direction, but also in addition to that, their main routine work was to engage and supervise the works of the said Coolies and Mazdoors who were engaged in clearing the drains, clearing the bushes, removing the weeds from the ponds and pools and other stagnant and watering areas and removing any obstruction in the drains and culverts for prevention of mosquito menace in the city in their respective wards and to report their authorities............" It also observed. "...... It cannot be said that on the suspension of Municipal Council, the services of the second-party workmen were, in fact, not personally meant for the Councillors only..........." About a quarter of a century back, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Others, . "...the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. ..findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points, cannot be agitated before a writ Court........" 7. It is not contended here in this case that the Tribunal has erroneously refused to admit admissible material or has erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the Tribunal to record the impugned findings. Nor it is that the finding of fact is based upon no evidence. It is not contended here in this case that the Tribunal has erroneously refused to admit admissible material or has erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the Tribunal to record the impugned findings. Nor it is that the finding of fact is based upon no evidence. We would therefore, examine the case on the basis of the findings reached by the Tribunal. On the findings as extracted above, the case of closure of the establishment has no leg to stand on. Besides, there was no plea before the Labour Court that there was a closure of the undertaking. 8. The closure that was argued before us was, no doubt, ingenious but lacks substance. It was contended that upon supersession of the Municipal Council, there was automatic closure of the establishment of mates. The Labour Court has demonstrated how factually the assertion is incorrect. The mates were not the personal servants of the Councillors. Their main duty was to supervise the work done by the Coolies and Mazdoors. Appraising the Councillors of the work done by them or the problems of the wards were additional features of their duty but not the sole duty. Besides, it is now too late in the day to contend that supersession of the Municipal Council would amount to closure when the entire establishment of the Municipality went on uninterrupted. In Orissa Khadi & Village Industries Board v. Narottam Sahu and Anr. 50 (1980) CLT 181 it was held that supersession and dissolution of the Board of an incorporated body having perpetual succession did not bring about an end to the existence of the incorporated body. Hence, the said contention also fails. 9. Termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever would constitute retrenchment except in cases excepted in the section itself. Excepted or excluded cases are where termination is by way of punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, voluntary retirement of workman, retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation, if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned a stipulation in that behalf, and termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health see Mohan Lal Vs. Management of Bharat Electronics Ltd.. Hence, the conclusion of the Labour Court that the termination of the workmen amounted to retrenchment cannot be faulted. 10. Management of Bharat Electronics Ltd.. Hence, the conclusion of the Labour Court that the termination of the workmen amounted to retrenchment cannot be faulted. 10. The management witness admitted before the Labour Court that the workmen had served under the Municipality for more than a year and no retrenchment benefit or compensation was given to them at the time of termination of their services. The Tribunal, therefore, correctly held that Section 25F had not been complied with. It directed reinstatement of the workmen with full back wages and continuity of service. 11. Full back wages would be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the reasons necessitating the departure. Where the workman was ready to work but for the invalid act of the employer, there is no justification for not awarding him full back wages which is very legitimately due to him. 12. Since no relevant circumstances were pleaded by the employer, the workmen were entitled to full back wages with continuity of service. The reliefs granted also do not call for interference. We, therefore, see no merit in this writ application which is accordingly dismissed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 250/-. Final Result : Dismissed