S. D. Pandit ( 1 ) RULE D. B. ( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and, hence, we proceed to decide the writ petition finally. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT Bal Kishan Sharma was appointed by the petitioner, viz. the Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, on temporary basis on 11. 5. 1972 on compassionate grounds. However, his services were not confirmed and his services were terminated on 13. 3. 1979 under Rule 5 of Central Civil Services Rules, 1965. According to the respondent his services were terminated on 13. 3. 1979 by falsely alleging against him that he had produced a false certificate in order to secure the job. According to him he had not at all produced the alleged certificate of Poorva Madhyann Examination Certificate from Varanasi Sanskrit Vidhyalaya but in spite of this a complaint was lodged against him but before the completion of investigation as well as without holding any departmental enquiry his services were terminated for the alleged act of fraud and cheating. Therefore, he had challenged the said termination and consequently, a reference was made under the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court. Accordingly, the proceedings in the case bearing No. LCID No. 519/86 were held by the Labour Court and ultimately, after necessary trial and inquiry, the Labour Court had found that respondent s termination of services was illegal and improper and an award was made in favour of the respondent by directing the petitioner to reinstate him in service with full back wages and continuity in service. Against the said award the present writ petition is filed. ( 4 ) IT is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent was appointed on temporary basis on compassionate grounds and he was not confirmed. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services Rules, his services would be terminated. The provisions of Central civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 are applicable to the respondent and, therefore, in these circumstances, the termination of the services of the respondent was not at all illegal or improper or in contravention of the rules governing his service. It is further contended that his services were terminated in terms of his employment and, therefore, the Labour Court was not at all justified in setting aside the said order of termination. It is further contended that his services were terminated in terms of his employment and, therefore, the Labour Court was not at all justified in setting aside the said order of termination. Therefore, a writ of certiorari be issued and the order of the Labour Court be quashed. ( 5 ) THE claim of the petitioner is contested by the respondent by contending that his services were terminated by putting a blame on him and that it was not a case of termination simpliciter. He has contended that it was falsely and wrongly alleged against him that he had produced a forged and fabricated certificate in order to secure the job. First Information Report was also lodged with the police and before the completion of investigation, his services were terminated, without holding any departmental enquiry. His services were terminated by putting a blame on him. Therefore, the Labour Court was quite justified in going through the record and find out the real nature of the order of the termination. The Labour Court has accordingly held the necessary inquiry after giving full opportunity to the parties and came to the conclusion that it was not a case of termination simpliciter and his termination was wrongful and illegal. He further contended that the said finding of the Industrial Tribunal need not be interfered with by exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He, thus, contended that the petitioner s petition be dismissed with costs. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner before us had lodged a complaint with the police against the respondent and the said complaint is registered as FIR No. 83/77 in Police Station Kotwali for the offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471, Indian Penal Code. There is also no dispute over the fact that the respondent was appointed on 11. 5. 1972 on temporary basis on compassionate grounds and he served the petitioner from 11. 5. 1972 till the order of termination issued on 13. 3. 1979. There is also no dispute over the fact that the respondent was appointed on 11. 5. 1972 on temporary basis on compassionate grounds and he served the petitioner from 11. 5. 1972 till the order of termination issued on 13. 3. 1979. ( 7 ) IT is the contention of the petitioner that the order issued by the petitioner was an innocuous order and misconduct was not imputed to the respondent and, therefore, it was not proper on the part of the Labour Court to go beyond the wording of the order but this contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is not tenable in view of the series of decisions of the Supreme Court in Rajinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab [1986{4} SCC 141]; Anoopjaiswal Vs. Government of India [1984 {2} SCC 369; Hardip Singh Vs. State of Haryana [ 1987 (Supp.) SCC 259 and Babulal Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. [ 1991 (2) SCC 335 ] All these cases are of employees who were employed on temporary basis and ineach of these cases it has been held that it is always open to the Court before which the order is challenged to go behind the form of the order and ascertain the true character of the order and, if the Court finds that the order though in the form is merely a determination of employment is in reality a cloak for an order of punishment, the Court would not be barred merely because of the form of the order in giving effect to the rights conferred in law on the employee. ( 8 ) IN the instant case the petitioner had filed a written statement before the Labour Court, a copy of which has been produced by the petitioner as Annexure P-2. In the said written statement in para (7) the petitioner has stated all the details about the conduct of the respondent as well as the lodging of the First Information Report No. 83/77 against him for the offences under Section 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code in the. In the said written statement in para (7) the petitioner has stated all the details about the conduct of the respondent as well as the lodging of the First Information Report No. 83/77 against him for the offences under Section 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code in the. of Police Station Kotwali, and then it has been pleaded by the petitioner after narrating all the details as under: "in view of the above, it is stated that the initial appointment on the post of Moharrir on compassionate grounds was secured by the applicant by foul means, misrepresentation and by producing a bogus and forged certificate of Purva Madhma from Varanasi Sanskrit Vidhalaya, Varanasi, and as such he was not entitled for appointment because he was not possessing the aforesaid certificate. KEEPING in view the aforesaid circumstances, the competent authority decided to terminate the services of Shri Bal Krishan Sharma in pursuance of proviso of sub-rule (i) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Accordingly, the services were terminated vide office order No. 2951/ces (0/79 dated 30. 3. 1979 (Copy enclosed ). " ( 9 ) IF the above pleadings of the petitioner are read then it would be quite clear that termination of the services of the respondent was not a simple termination but it was a termination by putting blame on the respondent. He was charged ofhaving produced a forged and fabricated document and cheated the employer but without holding any departmental enquiry in such a serious charge his services were terminated. ( 10 ) THE Labour Court has considered the evidence led by the parties in his judgement in detail. The petitioner had made an attempt to prove and justify its accusation, against the respondent, of producing forged and fabricated certificate. But the evidence led by the petitioner was not accepted by the Labour Court and it has recorded its conclusions in para No. 15 of the Award as under: "that the services of the petitioner were terminated vide an innocuous order copy of which has been proved as Ex. MW1/1. However, during his defence, the respondent itself came out with a case that the services of the petitioner were dispensed with on account of misconduct. MW1/1. However, during his defence, the respondent itself came out with a case that the services of the petitioner were dispensed with on account of misconduct. I have already observed above that the misconduct has not been proved and that the proper procedure has also not been followed as no charge sheet was given to the petitioner. No enquiry was held. Even an opportunity to explain his position was not given before terminating his services. This is proved on record from the statement of MW-1 and cross-examination of MW-1 that a large number of persons junior to the petitioner were retained in service while the services of the petitioner were dispensed with. The principle of last come First go has also not been followed. On this score, the respondent cannot be allowed to say that the services of the petitioner were terminated in confirmity with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. " ( 11 ) THEREFORE, in these circumstances, it is quite obvious that the services of the petitioner were not terminated by a simple order of termination and the Labour Court was quite justified in holding that it was not a simple termination and the said order was punitive in nature as the basis of the said order was alleged misconduct of the respondent in producing a false and fabricated certificate for securing employment. ( 12 ) IT must be further mentioned here that the petitioner has come before us under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It must be mentioned that the findings of fact recorded by the trial court could not be challenged by preferring the writ proceedings. This Court is not supposed to go into the question of findings of fact and to reappreciate the evidence led before the Labour Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court cannot act as an appellate court under Article 226. In the case of Sadhu Ram Vs. D. T. C. [ air 1984 SC 1467 ] the apex Court has laid down the following principles regarding exercising of powers in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: "the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is truly wide but, for that very reason, it has to be exercised with great circumspection. D. T. C. [ air 1984 SC 1467 ] the apex Court has laid down the following principles regarding exercising of powers in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: "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 deisputes of a kind qualitatively different from ordinary civil disputes and to readjudicate upon questions of fact decided by those Tribunals. That the questions decided pertain to jurisdictional facts docs 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, it is not proper for the High Court to substitute its judgement for that of the Labour Court and hold that the workman has raised no demand with the management and that there was no Industrial Dispute which could be properly referred by the Government for adjudication. " ( 13 ) THUS, we hold that there is no merit in this petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the writ petition with costs.