KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J. ( 1 ) THESE Writ Petitions are filed by the management-petitioner. The KSRTC challenges the award passed by the Labour court in reference Nos. 34/1994, 36/1994, 38/1994 and 48/1994. By the said award respondents 1 to 4 have been reinstated with back wages. Aggrieved by the award the management has preferred these Writ Petitions. ( 2 ) THE respondents 1 to 4 were working on daily wages and their services were terminated on June 15, 1993 without notice and contrary to Section 25-F of the Industrial disputes Act. The respondents being aggrieved by their termination raised a dispute under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The labour Court allowed the reference of the workmen and granted reinstatement with full back wages. The Labour Court gave a finding that the respondents had worked from August 1989 to June 1993. The Labour Court also held that the management did not produce any record to show that the workmen did not work in the Corporation. The Labour Court gave a finding that the workmen worked continuously for 240 days. ( 3 ) MR. Govindaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents never worked in the Corporation either as regular employees or as casual employees and therefore they were not entitled to any relief. ( 4 ) IN a recent Judgment the Supreme court in Indian Overseas Bank v. Lob Staff canteen Workers Union And Another 2000 (4) scc 245 : 200-I-LLJ-1618 held that it is not open for the Court while exercising powers under Article 226 to sit in appeal and disturb a finding of fact based on materials by the tribunal. The Supreme Court further held that the learned single Judge seems to have undertaken an exercise, impermissible for him in exercising writ jurisdiction, by liberally reapportioning the evidence and drawing conclusions of his own on pure questions of fact, unmindful, though aware fully that he is not exercising any appellate jurisdiction over the awards passed by a Tribunal, presided over by a Judicial Officer. The findings of fact recorded by the fact-finding authority was constituted for the purpose and which ordinarily should be considered to have become final, cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having been based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion of the writ Court to warrant those findings, at any rate, as long as they are based upon the material which are relevant for the purpose even on the ground that there is yet another view which can reasonably and possibly be taken. The Supreme court further held that the Division Bench was not only justified but well merited in its criticism of the order of the learned single judge and ordering restoration of the Award of the Tribunal. On being taken through the finding of the Industrial Tribunal as well as the order of the learned single Judge and the judgment of the Division Bench, the Supreme court was of the view that the Industrial tribunal had overwhelming materials which constituted ample and sufficient basis for recording its findings, as it did, and the manner of consideration undertaken, the objectivity of approach adopted and reasonableness of findings recorded seem to be unexpectionable. This could not and should not embark upon the exercise of re-assessing the evidence in arriving at findings on ones own, altogether giving a complete go-by even to the fact specifically found by the Tribunal. ( 5 ) IN the light of the observations of the supreme Court it would not be open for this court to re-appraise the evidence unless for compelling reasons. The finding is that the workmen had worked for 240 days continuously in a year. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, we are left with the question as to what relief the respondents are entitled. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a Judgment of this Court in W. A. 3449/1998 and 1348/ 1998 dated May 25, 2000. This Court held that a workman who was not appointed to a regular post cannot be regularised by the court unless there was a vacancy for a regular post. I am respectfully bound by the Judgment of this Court. ( 7 ) IN these circumstances, the only relief that can be granted is reinstatement to the original posts which they were holding. In , these circumstances, the respondents would not be entitled to back wages. I am respectfully bound by the Judgment of this Court. ( 7 ) IN these circumstances, the only relief that can be granted is reinstatement to the original posts which they were holding. In , these circumstances, the respondents would not be entitled to back wages. However, they would be entitled to continuity of service if the rules permit. The award is modified accordingly. Time granted for implementation i of the award shall be three months from the date of receipt of this order. The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. --- *** --- .