JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner company in the instant writ petition seeks to quash the award of the Labour Court dated February 11, 1992 and further seeks a declaration that Gopal Narain Bhati was a Supervisor and thus was not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) therefore was not entitled to any relief. 2. The facts as averred in the writ petition are that the respondent No.2 Gopal Narain Bhati was appointed on July 11, 1964 as an electrician and on May 1, 1967 he was promoted to the post of Electrical Supervisor.Thereafter he was promoted as Sr. Electrical Supervisor and assigned the work of supervision and was drawing salary of Rs. 2113/-. The workman was discharged from his services vide letter dated July 8, 1983 on the ground that his services were no more required. As a gesture of good will one month’s salary in lieu of notice was also offered to the workman by enclosing a cheque dated July 7, 1983 with the letter of discharge dated July 8, 1983. 3. Shri Bhati raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer vide letter dated December 7, 1983. In the letter the workman averred that he was designated as Supervisor but he was discharging the duties of a workman. It was further averred that he has been discharged from services without complying with the provisions of Sections 25 N & 25 F of the Act and a prayer was made for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The petitioner company submitted reply contending that Shri Bhati was a supervisor and he was in the cadre of Jr. Officer. He was discharging the duties of a Supervisor and was enjoying all the benefits, amenities and facilities as such he was not a workman as defined under section 2(s) of the Act. The Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report to the Government and the State Government on the basis of failure report referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court. 4. In support of statement of claim Shri Bhati examined himself and one Devi Lal, whereas the petitioner company filed affidavit of Shri S.K. Sharma. 5. Learned Labour Court on hearing the final submissions passed the impugned award as indicated herein above. 6. I have heard the rival submissions and scanned the record. 7. 4. In support of statement of claim Shri Bhati examined himself and one Devi Lal, whereas the petitioner company filed affidavit of Shri S.K. Sharma. 5. Learned Labour Court on hearing the final submissions passed the impugned award as indicated herein above. 6. I have heard the rival submissions and scanned the record. 7. In Ved Prakash Gupta v. Delton Cable India (1984) 2 SCC 569 the dispute was whether the Security Inspector at the gate of the factory was a ‘workman’ within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act. The dispute had arisen on account of Security Inspector’s dismissal from service. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to the nature of duties performed by the Security Inspector and held that he was a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. 8. In the case on hand the learned Labour Court minutely examined the evidence adduced by the parties and after referring the, nature of duties performed by Shri Bhati observed that he was a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act. i do not find any perversity in the mode of appreciation of evidence adopted by the Labour Court. While exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India only perversity of the order is to be seen, the disputed questions of fact can not be re appreciated. Writ jurisdiction is not an appellate jurisdiction. 9. This Court in Chairman K.G.S. Samiti Ltd. v. Judge Labour Court Bikaner 1999 (3) WLC (Raj.) 540 indicated in para 15 thus- "Whether the respondent workman falls within the definition of a ‘workman’ is a question of fact and it can not be decided here in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution." 10. In view of what I have discussed herein above I do not find it to be a fit case for making interference under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 11. The writ petition being devoid of merit, stands dismissed without any order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed - Award of Labour Court upheld. *******