JUDGMENT 1. - This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the above-named petitioners challenging the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, dated January 25, 1984 published on September 29, 1984 and against the order of Joint Labour Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur-II, dated March 19, 1985. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly staled, arc that the petitioners are two separate establishments registered under the Small Scale Industries and the main occupation of both the establishments is manufacturing of cloth by power-looms. While petitioner No. 1 i.e., Gulab Powerloom Factory, Madanganj at Kishangarh was established in the year 1966, Banwarilal Textile Factory, Madanganj, Kishangarh (petitioner No. 2) was established in the year 1976, both being sister Concerns. It is pertinent to mention that one Shri Ramniwas was an employee with Banwarilal Textile (petitioner No. 2) and had joined the said concern as a part-time Folder and was also an employee of M/s Gulab Powerloom Factory (Petitioner No. 1) and left the services of the said concern in the year 1977. The said workman is represented by respondent No. 2. i.e., the Bunkar Karamchari Union, Madanganj, Kishangarh. It is contended in the writ petition that on November 12, 1980 the said workman approached the Manager of petitioner No. 2, in the factory premises and made a request to pay him a sum of Rs. 1000/- as an advance for treatment of his mother who was ailing and as such the aforesaid amount was advanced to him. The said workman-Ramniwas was not interested to do any job with the establishment of petitioner No. 2 and, therefore, he purchased 8 looms from one Nandlal and Rameshwar in January, 1980 and notwithstanding the fact, that he was continuing in employment of petitioner Np.2, yet he was devoting maximum time for the development of the aforesaid powerlooms by carrying on his business independently and thus he was loosing interest in the folding work of the petitioner No. 2 and ultimately he left the service of petitioner No. 2 w.e.f. November 16, 1980. The said workman had in the meanwhile taken up another employment with M/s. Kejriwal Powerloom w.e.f November 16, 1980 and left the service of petitioner No. 2 on his own accord. The said workman had in the meanwhile taken up another employment with M/s. Kejriwal Powerloom w.e.f November 16, 1980 and left the service of petitioner No. 2 on his own accord. It was further submitted that thereafter the said workman raised an industrial dispute through union, respondent No. 2, before the Labour Commissioner (respondent No. 3) on September 14, 1982 which resulted in failure report and thereafter the State Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur under Notification No. F.(l)(202) L & E/82, dated September 14, 1982 and the term of reference Was as under:- "Whether the retrenchment of the workman Ramniwas Folder on November 17, 1980 by the management of M/s. Gulab Powerloom Factory, Madanganj, Kishangarh and by Management of M/s. Banwarilal Textile Factory, Madanganj, Kishangarhwas justified and if not to what relief the said workman is entitled." Thereafter notices were issued by the Industrial Tribunal to the management of the petitioner as well as the Union (respondent No. 2) which filed a statement of claint before the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (respondent No. 1). It was contended in the statement of claim on behalf of the workman by the Union that the said workman was a Folder initially in Gulab Powerloom Factory but sometime later in the year 1976 M/s Banwarilal Textile Factory was also established and the management of both the Concerns looked-after the welfare of the said workman. The management of both the Concerns was common and was looked-after by one Shri Hanuman Prasad who was the Manager of the said Concerns. 3. It was contended by the Union that Ramniwas worked in the management of the petitioner's powerlooms as a Folder upto November 14, 1980 but the management refused to take him on duty w.e.f. November 17, 1980. It was further contended on behalf of the workman by the Union that industrial dispute was raised before Conciliation Officer, Ajmer which was accordingly registered and ultimately was referred by the State Government before respondent No. 1 i.e., Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur vide statement of claim (Annexure -1). 4. It was further contended on behalf of the workman by the Union that industrial dispute was raised before Conciliation Officer, Ajmer which was accordingly registered and ultimately was referred by the State Government before respondent No. 1 i.e., Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur vide statement of claim (Annexure -1). 4. In reply to the statement of claim the management of the petitioners also submitted written statement on May 17, 1983 denying the claim of the workman and by way of objections, it was submitted by the petitioners that the Union, respondent No. 2, was not a registered union and, therefore, Ramniwas, the concerned workman was not a member of the Union, respondent No. 2, as such the Union had no power to submit the statement of claim on behalf of the workman before the Industrial Tribunal. It was : further contended that since the concerned workman Ramniwas had voluntarily discontinued with the service of M/s. Gulab Powerloom Factory after 1977 and since he had left on his own accord, he was not entitled to any relief. In this respect it will be pertinent to mention that since the concerned workman had not pressed for relief of reinstatement, the same was not granted by the Tribunal. Only two issues had emerged for consideration before the Industrial Tribunal, namely; (1) retrenchment compensation and (2) payment of gratuity. 5. So far as the management of petitioner No. 2 is concerned, it was contended before the Industrial Tribunal as well as this court that the concerned workman Ramniwas was a part-time Folder with the management of petitioner No. 2 and it was further denied that the said workman had made a demand on November 10, 1980 with regard to deducted wages. The petitioners had also denied the alleged dismissal of the workman w.e.f. November 17, 1980 and on the contrary it was clearly stated in the written statement submitted before the Tribunal as well as this court that the petitioner took an advance of Rs. 1000/- from the Manager of petitioner No. l on a pretext that his mother was sick. The petitioners had also denied the alleged dismissal of the workman w.e.f. November 17, 1980 and on the contrary it was clearly stated in the written statement submitted before the Tribunal as well as this court that the petitioner took an advance of Rs. 1000/- from the Manager of petitioner No. l on a pretext that his mother was sick. It has been further contended in the petition that the said workman had told to the Munim Pushalal that he has not wished to continue in the service of petitioner No. 2 and he had further staled that he would not come to the service of the management from the next day and as such on behalf of the workman it was contended by the Union that the alleged story of termination was false. There was express denial by the management of petitioner No. 2 to the contentions of the workman through letters dated November 18, 1980 and December 8, 1980. It was further submitted that the said workman after leaving services of the petitioner's Concern had taken 8 powerlooms on lease from M/s. Madanlal and Rameshwar in January, 1980 and he was devoting most of his time by working on the said powerlooms thereby disregarding and not attending to the work of the management of the petitioners. When the complaints of the customers were brought to the notice of the said workman by the petitioners' management, the workman voluntarily left the services of the petitioners. 6. During the course of evidence tendered on behalf of the workman, the Union had examined Shri Bherusingh, Ahsan Mohammed and Ramniwas workman himself as witnesses, while the petitioners examined its manager Hanuman Prasad and Munim Pushalal. The depositions of the said witnesses were tendered on the record in the form of affidavits before the Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal after examining the aforesaid witnesses who were also subjected to cross examination before the Tribunal, passed the impugned Award on January 25, 1984 (Annexure 8) which was published on September 29, 1984. 7. During the course of hearing before the Tribunal it was contended On behalf of the workman by the Union that the said workman had worked with the management of the petitioners as a Folder upto November 16, 1980 but the management had refused to take him on duty w.e.f. November 17, 1980. 7. During the course of hearing before the Tribunal it was contended On behalf of the workman by the Union that the said workman had worked with the management of the petitioners as a Folder upto November 16, 1980 but the management had refused to take him on duty w.e.f. November 17, 1980. The claim for reinstatement was however, not passed by the learned counsel for the said workman either before the Tribunal or before this court and the only issue pressed before the Tribunal by the 'workman was confined to the relief of gratuity and retrenchment compensation with a further contention that the workman was entitled to such relief since he had worked upto November 16, 1980 with the petitioners. 8. In the reply filed on behalf of the management of the petitioners it has been contended that since the concerned workman had stopped coming on his own accord by not reporting for duty w.e.f. November 17, 1980, he was not entitled to any relief, particularly when he had already taken an advance of Rs. 1000/- earlier due to his mother's sickness. Thus, in short the case of the petitioners is that Ramniwas was never removed from service but it amounts to abandonment of service by the said workman. In the affidavit filed by the concerned workman before the Tribunal it was deposed that the management of both the powerlooms is one and the same but for the sake of convenience the names of the workers are entered in the separate registers for each of the two managements of the petitioners. It was further deposed by the workman that he used to make entries regarding daily production of the cloth manufactured in the powerlooms in the registers in his own hand, while he had worked for the months of February and March, 1980, but no wages were paid to him for the said period and when he made a demand for wages for the said period he was removed from service. In cross examination the said workman admitted that petitioner No. 2 was established in the year 1975 and mat Shri Gyanchand Dagara was the owner of petitioner No. 1 and Shir Hanuman Prasad was the owner of petitioner No. 2. In cross examination the said workman admitted that petitioner No. 2 was established in the year 1975 and mat Shri Gyanchand Dagara was the owner of petitioner No. 1 and Shir Hanuman Prasad was the owner of petitioner No. 2. At the same time the said workman deposed that Shri Hanuman Prasad, Manager of petitioner No. 2 looks after the administration of bom the powerlooms and that the management of both the petitioner's Concerns is one and the same. It was further admitted by the said workman that he had taken an advance of Rs. 1000/ from Shri Pushalal Munim as his mother was ailing and that the said advance was taken as against his salary, but on November 16, 1980 his services were dispensed with by the Manager of the two Concerns. On the basis of the evidence tendered on the record it was held by the Industrial Tribunal that the workman Ramniwas was employed in two powerlooms, namely Gulab Powerloom and Banwarilal Textile Factory at Madanganj, Kishangarh and that at the time of his retrenchment in November, 1980, the said workman was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 750/-. It was further recorded that the case of abandonment of the services as pleaded by the petitioners, employers was not proved and cannot be rightly inferred at the same time and since the said workman had relinquished his claim for reinstatement, the same cannot be granted to him and in lieu thereof the Tribunal directed that Ramniwas shall be entitled to retrenchment compensation for a period of 12 years, i.e., salary for six months amounting to Rs. 4500/- and gratuity payable at the same rate, in all amounting to Rs. 9000/ -. The Tribunal held that the management of both the petitioner's Concerns are liable to pay the aforesaid amount to the concerned workman within a period of 30 days of the publication of the Award and in the event of its non-payment, it was further directed that the concerned workman shall be further entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the management of two powerlooms and the Award was consequently sent to the State Government for its publication vide its order, dated January 25, 1984. In terms of the aforesaid order the Tribunal held the management of two Concerns cumulatively liable to pay retrenchment compensation to the workman for the period of 12 years i.e., salary for six months amounting to Rs. 4500/- and gratuity at the same rate, in all Rs. 9000/ as referred to above. Since the claim of relinquishment was abandoned by the workman, the Tribunal fastended the liability on the management of the two Concerns to pay retrenchment compensation to the workman in terms of the above award. Being aggrieved from the above Award mis writ petition was filed in this court by the above petitioners-management challenging the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, dated January 25, 1984 which was published on September 29, 1984. 9. The grounds stated in the writ petition are that respondent No. 2, namely, Bunkar Karamchari Union, Kishangarh did not mention in the statement of claim anything regarding the salary of the workman and as such the petitioners had no occasion to make their submissions before the Tribunal with regard to the actual wages payable by the petitioners to the workman. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the workman was getting only Rs. 150/- per month from the management of M/s. Gulab Powefloom and Rs. 110/- per month from the management of M/s Banwarilal Textiles (Annexure 10) which aspect was ignored by the Tribunal in its Award and instead retrenchment compensation and gratuity was erroneously directed to be paid to the workman at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month. It was further contended on behalf of the management of the petitioner's Concerns that since the workman had left the services of the management way back in the year 1977 voluntarily and of his own accord, he was as such, not entitled to claim any benefits from the petitioner's concerns. 10. 750/- per month. It was further contended on behalf of the management of the petitioner's Concerns that since the workman had left the services of the management way back in the year 1977 voluntarily and of his own accord, he was as such, not entitled to claim any benefits from the petitioner's concerns. 10. With regard to the contention made on behalf of the workman that the said workman had served the management of M/s Gulab Powerloom Factory (petitioner No. 1) for past 12 years, it was contended that since the said Concern was established in the year 1976 and even if it be assumed that the said workman started working with the management of M/s. Banwarilal Textile (petitioner No. 2) from the date of its inception, then also the services of the workman cannot be counted for more than 4-5 years which aspect has not been looked into by the Tribunal while determining the compensation and gratuity calculated against the petitioners. It was further contended that since Ramniwas had abandoned the services of his own accord on October 12, 1980 by taking an advance of Rs. 1000/- from the petitioners on the pretext of illness of his mother, he was not entitled to any retrenchment compensation. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that w.e.f. November 16, 1980 the workman had absented himself by not attending the folding work on the powerlooms and on the contrary had joined some other Concern, which aspect of the matter has also remained untouched in the impugned Award. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the claim of relinquishment was abandoned by the petitioner's workman was not entitled to retrenchment compensation in compliance with requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended by the Act of 1982 (No. 46 of 1982). It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the claim of relinquishment was abandoned by the petitioner's workman was not entitled to retrenchment compensation in compliance with requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended by the Act of 1982 (No. 46 of 1982). In this context reference may be made to the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act which provides as under: "Section 25F - Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman - No workman employed in any industry who has been i'n continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-(a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice ; Provided that no such notice shall be necessary if the retrenchment is under an agreement which specifies a date for the termination of service; (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served oh the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the official Gazette ". It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents in reply to the contentions of petitioner's counsel that the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act which provide that no workman shall be retrenched by the employer until the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating reasons for retrenchment or that the workman has been paid wages in lieu of such notice, is not attracted to the facts of the present case, since the workman had to be paid retrenchment compensation for 12 years of service and the Tribunal had rightly calculated the compensation amount by awarding a sum of Rs. 9000/- calculated at the rate of Rs. 4500/- for a period of six months towards salary and Rs. 4500/- towards gratuity, in all Rs. 9000/- calculated at the rate of Rs. 4500/- for a period of six months towards salary and Rs. 4500/- towards gratuity, in all Rs. 9000/- plus interest at 9% per annum from the management of the two powerlooms in view of default towards the payment of the aforesaid amount to the workman and since there was nothing wrong with the validity of the said Award passed by the Tribunal, the findings of the Tribunal are not open to challenge before this court. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that had there been one establishment, there would not have been a reference to separate owners which itself clarifies that the management of both the petitioners' Concerns was separate. It was further contended on behalf of the respondents that since the Industrial Tribunal cannot travel beyond the terms of reference, the Tribunal had rightly held that the management of both the petitioner Concerns were liable to pay the Award amount to the workman within 30 days from the date of its publication as directed. 11. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No. 2, Karamchari Union had not claimed to espouse the cause of the workman since it was not a registered Union and no letter of authority had been placed by the Union on the record to represent the concerned workman. It was further contended that no grievance was made by the workman to the Award amount which has since been already disbursed and received by the workman directly in pursuance of the order of this Court, dated February 5, 1987, since this court while passing the said order had modified the same by directing that instead of amount being deposited before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, the said amount was directed to be paid to the workman directly before the Tribunal. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the workman had left his employment voluntarily after 1977, question of his having rendered any service subsequent to the year 1980 does not arise. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the workman had left his employment voluntarily after 1977, question of his having rendered any service subsequent to the year 1980 does not arise. Further more the work of the petitioner-management had suffered adversely as a consequence of abandonment of duties by the workman.The moot questions while arise for consideration of this court are as to whether in view of abandonment of service voluntarily by the concerned workman whether the relief of retrenchment compensation for a period of 12 months, as referred to above, on account of gratuity and wages was justified and whether the Union had no authority to raise the dispute on behalf of the workman? 12. With regard to the first question it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not opposed to the grant of retrenchment compensation to the workman in view of the fact that the petitioners are not challenging that first part of the Award which pertains to the grant of retrenchment compensation to the workman for a period of 12 years, namely, salary for a period of six months amounting to Rs. 4500/- but they are opposed to the Award of gratuity amounting to Rs. 4500/-because there is separate authority constituted under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for the Award of gratuity to the concerned workman which is not within the competence of the Industrial Tribunal. It was further contended that payment of gratuity is governed by the provisions of Section 4 of the Gratuity Act, 1972 which provides that gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years.... (a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. Reference was also made to Section 3 of the Act which provides that the appropriate Government, may, by Notification, appoint any officer to be a controlling authority, who shall be responsible for the administration of this Act. (a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. Reference was also made to Section 3 of the Act which provides that the appropriate Government, may, by Notification, appoint any officer to be a controlling authority, who shall be responsible for the administration of this Act. In view of the above specific provision of the Gratuity Act, 1972, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since no claim was preferred for payment of gratuity by the workman before an appropriate authority in terms of Section 3 of the Act, it was not within the competence of the Industrial Tribunal to award gratuity to the workman. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment of Kerala High Court in the matter of M.P. Sreedharan Nair v. State of Kerala and Ors. 1975 Lab. I.C. 1152 in support of his contention that in absence of resolution passed by the Union (respondent No. 2) which was espousing cause of the workman, the said Union had no locus-standi before the Tribunal. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Union must be duly authorised to represent the cause of the workman. The aforesaid contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners has no merit since the said plea was taken orally before the Tribunal but has nowhere been made either in the body of the writ petition or in the grounds, hence cannot be inferred by implication by this court in favour of the petitioners. 13. It is settled proposition of law that the facts which are not pleaded in the pleadings, the party should not be permitted to raise such new points before this court and that no amount of evidence can be looked into in support of the plea which has not been raised in the petition. I am fortified in my opinion by the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter in Manchineni Venkayya v. Manchineni Seshayya and Anr.: AIR 1954 Andhra Pradesh 29 wherein the said High Court held that the parties ought not to have been permitted to raise new points not covered by the pleadings or the issues and that no amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never put forward AIR 1930 PC 57 . It is well settled proposition of law that in the matters concerning enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this court need not go into the disputed questions of facts concerning the appreciation of evidence and a finding of fact howsoever perverse is not subject to challenge in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this regard I am fortified in my views by the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of T. Prem Sager Sagar v. Standard Vacuum Oil Company, Madras and Ors.: (1964-I-LLJ-47) wherein the Apex Court held as under:- "In writ proceedings if an error of law apparent on the face of the record is disclosed and a writ is issued, the usual course to adopt is to correct the error and send the case back to the special Tribunal for its decision in accordance with law. It would be inappropriate for the High Court exercising its writ jurisdiction to consider the evidence for itself and reach its own conclusions in matters which have been left by the legislature to the decisions of specially constituted Tribunals". 14. On the question concerning the award of gratuity to the workman I am of the opinion that no jurisdictional error has been committed by the Tribunal in awarding the gratuity for a period of six months as against the 12 years service rendered by the workman and the same is not open to challenge before this court, as would be apparent from the statement of objects and reasons of the Gratuity Act, 1972, the scheme of the said enactment is beneficial to protect the poor workmen who belong to the weaker sections of the society and not to take back out of them what they have already received. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the award of gratuity to the concerned workman was thus made perfectly in accordance with law. I am further fortified in my views in this regard from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Sadhu Ram v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1983-II-LLJ-383) wherein the Apex Court held as under:- "The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is truly wide but, for that very reason, it has to be exercised with great circumspection. I am further fortified in my views in this regard from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Sadhu Ram v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1983-II-LLJ-383) wherein the Apex Court held as under:- "The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is truly wide but, for that very reason, it has to be exercised with great circumspection. It is not for the High Court to constitute itself into an appellate court over Tribunals constituted under special legislations to resolve disputes of a kind qualitatively different from ordinary civil disputes and to re-adjudicate upon questions of fact decided by those tribunals. That the questions decided pertain to jurisdictional facts does not entitle the High Court to interfere with the findings on jurisdictional facts which the Tribunal is well competent to decide. Where the circumstances indicate that the Tribunal has snatched at jurisdiction, the High Court may be justified in interfering. But where the Tribunal gets jurisdiction only if a reference is made and it is therefore, impossible ever to say that the Tribunal has clutched at jurisdiction, we do not think that it was proper for the High Court to substitute its judgment for that of the Labour Court and hold that the workman had raised no demand with the management". I am further of the opinion that part of the award which concerns the payment of wages to the workman for a period of six months at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month also does not call for any interference by this court and the findings of the learned Tribunal, both with regard to the payment of wages as well as the gratuity are perfectly legal and the award being in accordance with law does not suffer from any infirmity and consequently does not call for any interference by this Court. 15. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining their rival contentions and also the documents rendered on the record and the legal proposition, as referred to above, I am consequently of the opinion that no ground has been made out by the petitioners for interfering with the Award, dated January 25, 1984 passed by the Industrial Tribunal and this writ petition is consequently dismissed with no order as to cost. Since the workman has already received the compensation in terms of the aforesaid Award no further directions are necessary by this Court.Petition Dismissed. Since the workman has already received the compensation in terms of the aforesaid Award no further directions are necessary by this Court.Petition Dismissed. *******