JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges the order dated 3.12.85 of Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as the C.G.LT.) passed in Case No.CGIT/LC (C)(529)/1980 whereby the petitioners have been directed to pay to respondent No.1 pension, bonus, and graduity as per rules prevelent at the relevant time with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till payment. Respondent No.1 was in the employment of petitioner as key-man at Ratlam. He was appointed in the year 1947. He had completed more than 29 years of service. It is alleged that he resigned from service vide letter Annexures 'A' and 'B' and the same was accepted w.e.f. 13.1.1977. He (respondent No.1) however, claimed that he had sought voluntary retirement from service and, therefore, he is entitled for the pensionary benefits including graduity. Respondent filed various applications to the department. However, the same was not acceeded to. He, therefore, filed an application before the Tribunal who vide order referred above has directed for payment of pension and other benefits to respondent No. 1. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondentNo.1 has resigned from service and the same was duly accepted by competent authority. He had not completed 30 years of qualifying service for pension and the same has rightly been refused to respondent and the judgment/order of Industrial Court is erroneous and illegal to that extent. The contention of the respondent is that firstly, he has not resigned from service rather he sought voluntrary retirement; alternatively his resignation was not accepted by a competent authority and, therefore, he will be deemed to have continued in service till the date of superannuation. He has also contended that he entered in service in the year 1945 as a temporary employee and was thereafter appointed permanently in the year 1947 and, therefore, the earlier period of employment be also counted towards the period of his service for giving him a benefit of retirement. Learned Tribunal, vide order referred above, found as follows :- That respondent was appointed from the year 1947 and his contention of having worked as casual labourer from 1945 to 1947 has not been found proved. The respondent No.1 has not resigned from service but sought voluntary retirement as is clear from his application. Learned Tribunal, vide order referred above, found as follows :- That respondent was appointed from the year 1947 and his contention of having worked as casual labourer from 1945 to 1947 has not been found proved. The respondent No.1 has not resigned from service but sought voluntary retirement as is clear from his application. It was also observed that since he demanded other benefits in the application that shows the intention and, therefore, it can readily be inferred that the respondent, in fact, sought voluntary retirement. The last finding in favour of respondent No.1 is that Assistant Engineer was not competent to accept the application for voluntary retirement before the respondent No.1 has completed 30 years of qualifying service. In the background of above finding, the learned Tribunal has directed for payment of pensionary and other benefits to respondent No.1. The finding of fact by C.G.LT. is based on appreciation of evidence. We would not like to enter into reappraisal of evidence while exercising our jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. This is not the case of the petitioners that the C.G.LT. was not competent or' has no jurisdiction to pass the orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to take us to the evidence but we declined to interfere with the finding as this is not a case of total absence of evidence or a case where finding has been arrived at on irrelevant or extraneous evidence. There is a basis for the finding of the C.G.LT. Even otherwise this is a case where a poor class IV employee who had worked under the petitioner for nearly 30 years is only seeking a pensionary and other benefits which he is entitled for. In this welfare State, it is not expected of the government and public agencies to ask for the pound of flesh only on technical grounds. As a matter of fact the petitioner ought to have honourably accepted the adjudication of the C.G.LT. and should have paid all amount due to a poor employee who has given best of his life in their service. We hope and trust that the authorities would in future not enter into such luxurious litigations. In the result this petition is dismissed with cost. Counsel's fee Rs.300/- if certified.