This writ application has been filed challenging legality and validity of the award dated 2.3.1995 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No.7 of 1990. Two questions were referred for adjudication by the Labour Court and they are as follows: (a) Whether the Management of Behora Tea Estate are justified in dispensing with the service of Shri Bimal Kumar Dutta, Mechanic, in course of his illness instead of administering him proper medical treatment ? (b) If not, is the said workman entitled to re-instatement with full back wages or any other benefit in lieu thereof ? The Labour Court on consideration of the materials on record found that termination of the service of the petitioner was not justified and he has prevented from doing duty because of illness. It is further found by the Labour Court that the workman is not gainfully employed after his dismissal from service. The Labour Court accordingly passed the following award. The workman will, therefore, be entitled to reinstatement in his service with full back wages and all other incidental benefits and to extend him adequate medical facilities for treatment of the ailments developed while in course of its continuous employment with the management and for victimisation practice, an amount of Rs.7,000 only was granted as ex-gratia relief to the workman over and above his back wages and other incidental benefits. 2. Before the Labour Court the following witnesses were examined. Bimal Dutta, the workman. He was examined and cross-examined. PW 2 is the wife 8 of the workman, Guna Saikia, an employee of the tea estate, Shida Dhekial Phukan, Factory Mohorer, Hirendra Narayan Kar, the Medical Officer of the garden. The depositions of the witnesses along with documents exhibited by them were properly used and considered by the Labour Court and the Labour Court came to the findings as Indicated above. 3. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the award. The law is that an award should not be scrutinized by the writ Court in order to find fault with it or to making a hole here and there. That being the position, this writ application shall stand dismissed. I have Heard Mr. HK Baishya learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mrs A. Bhattacharyy a, learned Advocate for the respondents.