H. K. RATHOD, J. ( 1 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. D. M. Thakkar has appeared for the petitioner. Learned advocate Ms. Shah has appeared for the respondent Sangh. ( 2 ) THE doctrine of absolute freedom of contract has, thus, to yield to the higher claims for social justice. The right to dismiss an employee is also controlled subject to well recognized limits in order to guarantee security of tenure to industrial employees. ( 3 ) IT is too late in the day now to stress the absolute freedom of an employer to impose any condition which he likes on labour. It is always open to industrial adjudication to consider the conditions of employment of labour and to vary them if it is found necessary, unless the employer can justify an extraordinary condition. It is important to remember that just as the employers right to exercise his option in terms of the contract has to be recognized so is the employees right expect security of tenure to be taken into account. ( 4 ) THE concept of social justice is not narrow, or one sided or pedantic, and is not confined to industrial adjudication alone. Its sweep is comprehensive. It is founded on the basic ideal of socio economic quality and its aim is to assist the removal of socio economic disparities and inequalities; nevertheless in dealing with industrial matters, it does not adopt a doctrinaire approach and refuses to yield blindly to abstract notions but adopts a realistic and pragmatic approach. It, therefore, endeavour to remove the competing claims of employers and employees by finding a solution which is just and fair to both parties with the Object of establishing harmony between capital and labour, and good relationship. ( 5 ) IN this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and award passed by the labour court, Surendranagar dated 2nd July, 1994 in Reference No. 7 of 1990 whereby 20 workmen were ordered to be made permanent with effect from 1st April, 1990. ( 6 ) THIS Court, while admitting this petition on 26th July, 1995, has refused interim relief. However, in view of the request made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, reasons for refusing the interim relief were not recorded by this court. ( 6 ) THIS Court, while admitting this petition on 26th July, 1995, has refused interim relief. However, in view of the request made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, reasons for refusing the interim relief were not recorded by this court. ( 7 ) IN this petition, challenge made by the petitioner to the award passed by the labour court, Surendranagar in Reference No. 7 of 1990 dated 2nd July, 1994 is required to be examined by this court. The other aspects are not required to be examined by this court. ( 8 ) THE learned advocate Mr. Thakkar appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that the labour court has erred in passing the impugned award; the impugned award is contrary to the record and settled principles of law and that the labour court has no power or authority to grant the reliefs which has been granted by the impugned award; the findings given by the labour court are perverse and baseless and the same are not based upon any legal evidence and, therefore, the award impugned herein is required to be set aside since there is error apparent on the face of record. ( 9 ) ON the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Shah appearing for the respondent Sangh has submitted that the labour court has applied the mind and has passed the impugned award after considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record. According to her, the impugned award is just and proper and require no interference of this court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India. She has relied upon paragraph 10 page 32 (internal page 4 of the award ). According to her, details of each workmen has been given in the said paragraph and as per the said paragraph, persons junior to the concerned workmen have been made permanent and, therefore, the labour court has granted permanency benefit to the concerned workmen with effect from 1st April, 1990 and, therefore, the labour court has committed no error either in law or in facts while passing the impugned award. She has relied upon 22 GLR page 700, in case of F. M. Kolia versus G. S. Barot and has submitted that the effect of the award has rightly been given from the date of the reference and the labour court is having power and jurisdiction to decide and adjudicate the industrial dispute. She has also placed reliance upon the decision of this court in case of Kalol Municipality and another versus Shantaben Kalidas and Others reported in 1993 (2) GLR 997 and has submitted that in view of the principles laid down by this court in aforesaid decision, this petition is required to be dismissed with costs. ( 10 ) I have considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have also perused the order passed by the labour court. I have also considered the industrial dispute raised by the union as to whether the workmen working in the company who have completed 240 days from the date of their joining should be made permanent or not and whether they should be paid the amount of difference or not if they have been paid less amount of salary after completion of 240 days work? ( 11 ) BEFORE the labour court, statement of claim has been filed by the union and the written statement has been filed by the company and thereafter, the union has asked for production of certain documents from the petitioner company vide application Exh. 8. The documents sought to be produced by the union from the petitioner company are six years registers, pay register, date of joining of each of the workmen, seniority list and holidays in the year and the list of workmen who have been made permanent during the last three years. In response to the said demand of the union vide Exh. 8, the petitioner company had produced certain documents vide list Exh. 9 Exh. 9/1 and 9/2 are the seniority list of temporary and permanent workmen for the year 1985 to 1989. Thereafter, the respondent has produced list vide Exh. 10 pointing out working days prior to the reference and subsequent to the reference and the workmen those who are made permanent excepting the member of the Union. 9 Exh. 9/1 and 9/2 are the seniority list of temporary and permanent workmen for the year 1985 to 1989. Thereafter, the respondent has produced list vide Exh. 10 pointing out working days prior to the reference and subsequent to the reference and the workmen those who are made permanent excepting the member of the Union. List of contractors workers and the wage slip has also been produced and according to the union, in all, 20 workmen are entitled to the benefits of permanency as per Exh. 11. Exh. 21 is the list of temporary workmen who have been made permanent by the petitioner company. Exh. 22 is the list of temporary workmen. On behalf of the union, one Deepaksinh Gambhirsinh Rana has deposed before the labour court at Exh. 12. Thereafter, another witness Bahadursinh Rana has been examined on behalf of the union before the labour court vide Exh. 24. On behalf of the petitioner company, its company secretary Kalyankumar Bhupeshchandra Chaudhary has been examined vide Exh. 20. According to the said witness, in all 79 workmen have been made permanent. According to him, in the year 1985, there were 60 permanent workmen. Thereafter, the respondent union had submitted arguments and petitioner has submitted written arguments vide Exh. 30 and, thereafter,the labour court has examined the issue on the basis of the evidence brought before it. Thereafter, the labour court has examined the issue and has considered the working days of the respective workmen in comparision to the employees junior to the concerned workmen. After such consideration and comparision, the labour court has granted benefit to 20 workmen with a direction to make them permanent with effect from 1st April, 1990. ( 12 ) ACCORDING to my view, the labour court has considered the documents on record in detail and has given proper thought while passing the impugned order. I am therefore of the opinion that the findings of the labour court are based on the facts which are brought on record and are, thus, findings of facts. As per the principles laid down by the division bench of this court in case of Kalol Municipality (supra), the labour court has power to grant such relief if the industrial dispute to that effect has been raised by the union before it. As per the principles laid down by the division bench of this court in case of Kalol Municipality (supra), the labour court has power to grant such relief if the industrial dispute to that effect has been raised by the union before it. ( 13 ) THEREFORE, in view of the principles laid down by this court in case of Kalol Municipality (supra), the labour court has power to adjudicate the dispute if it is referred to it for adjudication by the appropriate Government under section 10 (1) of the ID Act and the labour court can vary the contract or can change the contract and for that, the labour court is not bound by any rules or regulations or service conditions of the company or corporation, as the case may be. The labour court is also having power even to create the service condition for the workmen. Said question has been examined by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Indian Bank Association versus Workmen, reported in 1998 (1) LLJ page 233. On page 233 of the report, it has been held as under :"another ground of challenge of the impugned award was that the respondents were, in the guise of a reference, claiming modification of the terms of the agreements. This was rejected as misconceived. The Court said it was well known as a part of the jurisprudence applicable to industrial law that Industrial Tribunals are vested with the jurisdiction of also modifying the contract of service and in the process may entitle the workmen to better rights and facilities. " ( 14 ) FROM the affidavit filed by one K. K. Chaudhary, Company Secretary of the petitioner Company, learned advocate Mr. Thakkar has pointed out that six workmen out of 20 have been made permanent. Names of those six workmen are as under: ( 21 ) THEREFORE, in view of the aforesaid facts and clear position of law, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the labour court has committed any jurisdictional error while granting reliefs in favour of the concerned workman. There is no error which is apparent on the face of the record. The findings of the labour court are based on the evidence adduced and produced before it and are findings of facts. There is no error which is apparent on the face of the record. The findings of the labour court are based on the evidence adduced and produced before it and are findings of facts. Therefore, while exercising the powers under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India, this court cannot reappreciate such findings of fact and cannot act as a Court of Appeal. Further, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has not been able to point out any jurisdictional error and/or infirmity in the order impugned before this court. This Court, therefore, cannot interfere with such findings of fact and cannot disturb the same and therefore, this petition is required to be dismissed. No other contentions has been raised by the either side. ( 22 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. .