JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed impugning the award of the Labour Court Jaipur dated March 27, 1996 whereby the retrenchment/termination of the AIR 1981 SC 422 respondent workman was declared illegal and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and back wages at the rate of र 100/- per year. 2. Before the Labour Court the respondent workman claimed to have worked more than 240 days in one calendar year with the petitioner and asserted that his termination was against the provisions contained in section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act). The Labour Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties observed that the contention of the workman was correct and the petitioner employer had flouted section 25F of the Act. 3. Mr. Mahendra Goya], learned counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed that the workman did not work for more than 240 days in one calendar year. The evidence was not properly appreciated. Respondent was casual employee and his disengagement from service cannot be construed to be a retrenchment under the Act. Reliance was placed on Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others v. State of Bihar and others . 4. I have reflected over the submissions advanced before me and carefully scanned the material on record. 5. I am unable to pursuade myself to agree with the argument of the learned counsel Shri Goyal. Labour Court observed in the impugned order that relevant Muster Rolls were not produced by the employer petitioner before it. Affidavit of Sagar Chand witness of the employer petitioner was disbelieved and it was held that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in one calender year. The petitioner employer failed to establish that the workman was casual labour. Thus the ratio of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi's case (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the instant case. 6. This court has a very limited scope of interference under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The powers should be exercised sparingly when there is a case of flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice or where order of the court below has resulted in grave injustice. 7. I do not find any error in the impugned award. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.Petition dismissed with cost. *******