JUDGMENT R. B. Mehrotra, J - 1. U. P. State Electricity Board, a State Government Undertaking, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, dated 8th April, 1987. 2. The Labour Court, Kanpur. in the impugned order has awarded an amount of only Rs. 7,117.50 to respondent Anandpal Singh accepting the claim of respondent workman only partly. The respondent-workman claimed an amount of Rs. 70,615.50. The brief facts necessary for the decision of the writ petition are as under: 3. Respondent-workman Anandpal Singh was employed with U. P. State Electricity Board from 1st January, 1967 as work charge Coolie. The respondent-workman claimed that he was regularised as work charge coolie on 16-3-1973 and he was transferred from Aligarh to Mathura on 1-4-1973. The respondent-workman accordingly joined his duty on 1-4-1973 at Mathura. On 1-6-1974, the respondent-workman claimed to have been transferred back to Alegarh. Subsequent thereto on 1-4-1975, the respondent-workman was transferred to Etah. The case of the respondent-work man is that whenever he was traasferred to different place of postings, he joined his duties at the place where he was transferred. The respondent-workman contended that he has submitted his T. A bills for joining duties at transferred places but he has not been paid any sum for the said T. A. bills. 4. The respondent-workman filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 33-C (2 of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming payment of his salary from 1-2-1970 to August, 1982, bonus, overtime and salary in lieu of wages and made his claim for an amount of Rs. 70,615.50 P. The Labour Court afforded opportunity to both employer and the workman for adduring evidence. 5. The petitioner, U. P State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the employer) contested the claim of the respondent-workman and stated that the services of the respondent-workman were purely temporary and his services were terminated from time to time and the respondent- workman was re-employed but ultimately the services of the respondent- workman were terminated on 23-3-1976. According to the employer, the respondent-workman was employed on 1-11-1967. Thereafter his services were terminated on 28-1-1970. Again the respondent-workman was employed on 13-3-1970 and his services were terminated on 1-1-1971. Again respondent-workman was employed on 28-4-1971 and his service were terminated on 23-3-1976. According to the employer, the respondent-workman was employed on 1-11-1967. Thereafter his services were terminated on 28-1-1970. Again the respondent-workman was employed on 13-3-1970 and his services were terminated on 1-1-1971. Again respondent-workman was employed on 28-4-1971 and his service were terminated on 23-3-1976. The case of the employer is that throughout the period the respondent-workman worked, the salary of the said period had already been paid to the respondent-workman and the employer is not liable to pay any amount claimed by the respondent- workman in his application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. The Labour Court, after assessing the evidence of both the parties, accepted the claim of the employer that the services of the workman were terminated on 23-3-1976. The Labour Court, has however, held that the respondent-workman was entitled to get salary for the period 1-2-1970 to 28-2-1970 at the rate of Rs. 282.75 per month and from 1-9-1972 to 31-3- 1974 at the same rate. Likewise the labour court accepted the claim of the workman for paymens of salary for the period 1-2-1975 to 28-2-1975 and 1-4-1975 to 22-3-1976 The labour court further accepted the claim of the respondent-workman for bonus for the years 1973-74 and 1975-76 at the rate of Rs. 282.75 per year i.e., one month's salary in a year. The Labour Court also accepted the claim of the respondent workman for T.A. bills of the years 1973 and 1975. The aforesaid award of the labour court has been challenged in the present writ petition. The counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the award of the labour court is contrary to the evidence on record and the material evidence on record has not been taken into consideration The labour court has exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding bonus to the respondent-workman as bonus was being awarded only to the permanent employee and the respondent-workman being temporary employee was not entitled for the bonus. The counsel for the petitioners has referred to the joint inspection report and the statements of the employer's witnesses for canvassing that had the labour court taken taken into account all these material evidence, the labour court could not have recorded the finding accepting the workman's claim for payment of wages and payment of bonus. 7. The counsel for the petitioners has referred to the joint inspection report and the statements of the employer's witnesses for canvassing that had the labour court taken taken into account all these material evidence, the labour court could not have recorded the finding accepting the workman's claim for payment of wages and payment of bonus. 7. I have carefully gone through the statements of the employer's witnesses and the joiat inspection report relied upon by the employers counsel. The labour court has rightly pointed out in its award that there are inherent contradictions in the employer's evidence and in view of the aforesaid contradictions, the employer's evidence has been rejected. On the contrary, the labour court believed the statement of the workman to the extent that he has not received his salary for the period he claimed till 24-3-1976. The labour court also extended the benefit of bonus to the respondent-workman on the basis that the employer was giving his bonous to its permanent employees. If the award of the labour court is miscroscopically examined then some errors can be discovered in the findings recorded by the labour court. It is also true that the labour court has not mentioned in its judgment the entire evidence produced by the employer and has only considered the evidence of the employer's main witness and on the basis of the aforesaid evidence recorded a finding. However, in view of the fact that the respondent-workman has been awarded only a very meagre amount of Rs. 7,117.50 for his salary which became due to him on 23-3-1976 and the fact that the respondent workman has not been paid even a single cell of the aforesaid amount till date, even if it is found that there is same minor error in the award, I do not think it a fit case to be interfered with, in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even if some lesser amount would have been awarded by the labour court to the workman and the workman would have been found entitled only a part of the claim which had been given to him, the workman must have received more amount than awarded to him by way of Interest in 14 years period, the date from which the amount became due to the workman. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. Mr. K. G. S. Bhatt, JT 1989 (3) SC 513 has held :- "The Tribunal may fall Into some legal errors but if substantial justice has been rendered to a person, this Court will not interfere with such a decision. In Rashpal Malhotra v. Satya Rajput, 1987 (4) SCC 391 , the view that even if legal flaws might be electronically detected in the order of the Tribunal or court, this Court will not interfere unless there is manifest injustice or substantial question of public importance." The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the aforesaid observation while exercising its equity jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constirution of India. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is akin to the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India as the High Court also exercises equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Before departing with the case, I feel adding a note that the petitioner a public undertaking should have been better advised to the present matter not to file the writ petition. The Undertaking must have spent larger amount in litigation which was required to be paid to the workman, and no principle was involved in the matter it was a case of an individual workman, and the labour court having awarded a meagre amount to the workman, the Undertaking should not have behaved like a private ltigant, realising that in a welfare State, the State should rise above the petty consideration and should not make every issue a prestige issue, thereby compel a workman to fight litigation and wait for more than a decade to get the fruits of a petty amount awarded by an industrial court, specially constituted for adjudicating the industrial disputes. On the facts of the present case, I am satisfied that substantial justice between the parties has been done and no manifest injustice has been done to the petitioners, which calls for an interference by this court even if it is found that there is some error in the labour court's order. 9. Accordingly, I dismiss the writ petition with costs. In the facts of the present case, I quantify the costs of Rs. 2,000/-. Petition dismissed.