JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners on 9.10.2000 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the judgment and award dated 2.12.1999 (Annex. 10) passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur by which he ordered regularisation of services of respondent No. 3 Mohan Lal Solanki with effect from 18.10.1974 alongwith arrears etc., be quashed and set aside and the services of respondent No. 3 be regularised with effect from 8.2.1978 in place of 18.10.1974. 2. The case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ petition is as follows: The respondent No. 3 Mohan Lal Solanki was initially appointed as Casual Labour on Muster-Roll basis on 6th September, 1971 in the erstwhile Board and, thereafter, he was conferred the pay scale of the post of Helper Gr.II with effect from 1st April, 1974. It was submitted by the petitioners that the respondent No. 3 was asked to discharge the duties as Driver for a period of three months on temporary basis vide order dated 17th October, 1973, but his services were not at all found satisfactory. As a matter of fact, no extension was given to the respondent No. 3 beyond 17th Jan. 1974 and he was deemed to have been treated as Helper as his services were not at all found satisfactory as Driver. In this respect, the petitioners placed reliance on the letter dated 13th March, 1975 (Annex. 1). It was further submitted by the petitioners that thereafter, on the recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted in terms of the Board's Order No. RSEB/DDP/D 2368 dated 1st November, 1977, the respondent No. 3 was regularly appointed as Vehicle Driver vide order dated 8th February, 1978, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 2. It was further submitted by the petitioners that thereafter, the respondent No. 3 raised industrial dispute after a period of 19 years before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Sirohi on 12.1.1993 raising a claim that he was entitled to be given the fixation of the pay scale on the post of Driver with effect from 18th October, 1974, with all consequential benefits in place of 8th February, 1978. The petitioners appeared before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and denied the claim of the respondent No. 3 and took a specific objection with regard to delay and laches on the part of the respondent No. 3 in raising the dispute. However, the matter was referred to the State Government when the conciliation proceedings failed and, thereafter, the State Government through Notification dated 8th August, 1995 made a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1947") to the Labour Court, Jodhpur to the effect whether non-regularisation of services of the respondent No. 3 on the post of Vehicle Driver with effect from 18.10.1974 alongwith arrears was proper and valid or not. On receiving that reference, the Labour Court, Jodhpur registered the case being Labour Dispute Case No. 21/95. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 submitted his claim through Annex. 4 before the respondent No. 2 Labour Court, Jodhpur on 7th May, 1996 and a reply to the claim of the respondent No. 3 was filed by the petitioners through Annex. 5 before the respondent No. 2 Labour Court, Jodhpur raising preliminary objection with regard to delay and laches on the part of the respondent No. 3 in raising the dispute. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence before the respondent No. 2 Labour Court in support of their respective cases. After hearing both the parties and after considering the entire evidence and material available on record, the Labour Court, Jodhpur through impugned judgment and award dated 2.12.1999 (Annex. 10) came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 3 was entitled to be regularised on the post of Driver with effect from 18.10.1974 with all arrears and not with effect from 8.2.1978 as done by the petitioners and thus, dispute was answered accordingly in favour of the respondent No. 3 holding inter-alia: (1) That the log-books pertaining to the disputed period were called for from the petitioners, but they were not produced by the petitioners and, therefore, in these circumstances, adverse inference was drawn by the Labour Court against the petitioners. (2) That from the evidence on record, the fact that the respondent No. 3 worked continuously for one year on the post of Driver from 17.10.1973, is well established and, therefore, he was entitled to be regularised on the post of Driver with effect from 18.10.1974 alongwith arrears. (2) That from the evidence on record, the fact that the respondent No. 3 worked continuously for one year on the post of Driver from 17.10.1973, is well established and, therefore, he was entitled to be regularised on the post of Driver with effect from 18.10.1974 alongwith arrears. Aggrieved from the said judgment and award dated 2.12.1999 (Annex. 10) passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. In this writ petition, the following submissions have been raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners: (1) That the claim petition before the Labour Court, Jodhpur was filed by the respondent No. 3 in the year 1996, which is belated one and the impugned judgment and award of the Labour Court are liable to be set aside on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the respondent No. 3 in filing the claim petition, as this objection was taken by the petitioners before the Labour Court, but it was not accepted by the Labour Court. (2) That even on facts it has not been established that the respondent No. 3 worked as Driver continuously for one year with effect from 17.10.1973 as through Annex. 1 dated 13.3.1975, he was reverted back to the post of Helper from the post of Driver, as his driving was not found perfect and to the mark. (3) That regularisation and regular pay scale cannot be claimed as a matter of right and once the respondent No. 3 has been regularised with effect from 8.2.1978 on the recommendations of the Selection Committee, he had no right to get any benefit prior to that date. Hence, the findings of the Labour Court that the respondent No. 3 was entitled to regularisation on the post of Driver with effect from 18.10.1974 alongwith arrears are wholly erroneous and perverse one and should be set aside. Hence, the findings of the Labour Court that the respondent No. 3 was entitled to regularisation on the post of Driver with effect from 18.10.1974 alongwith arrears are wholly erroneous and perverse one and should be set aside. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 3 and in that reply, it was submitted by the respondent No. 3 that the findings of facts arrived at by the Labour Court, Jodhpur (respondent No. 2) cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 or the Constitution of India, as the findings of fact are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and furthermore, this Court is not empowered to correct an error apparent on the face of record much less an error of law. It was further submitted by the respondent No. 3 that factually it is correct that he was working on the post of Driver with effect from 17.10.1973 regularly as this fact is very well proved even from the documents of the petitioners and for that, he has placed reliance on Annexures R/3/1 to R/3/4. Annex. R/3/4 is a letter dated 18.8.1980 written by M.C. Singhvi, Executive Engineer (TDIV), RSEB, Bhilwara to the Chief Engineer (O&M), RSEB, Jaipur in which it has been specifically stated that Mohan Lal, Driver (respondent No. 3) was driving vehicle from 10.10.1973 continuously. Hence, it was prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioners be dismissed. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and perused the impugned judgment and award dated 2.12.1999 (Annex. 10) passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed reliance on the letter Annex. 1 dated 13.3.1975 and in that letter, it was stated that driving of the respondent No. 3 was not found perfect and upto the mark and, therefore, he was revered back to his original post i.e. Helper. 5. In this case, there is no dispute on the point that through order Annex. 2 dated 8.2.1978, on the recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted vide order dated 1st November, 1977, the services of the respondent No. 3 were regularised on the post of Vehicle Driver with effect from 8.2.1978. 6. 5. In this case, there is no dispute on the point that through order Annex. 2 dated 8.2.1978, on the recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted vide order dated 1st November, 1977, the services of the respondent No. 3 were regularised on the post of Vehicle Driver with effect from 8.2.1978. 6. Thus, the question for consideration in this case is whether the respondent No. 3 was entitled to be regularised on the post of Driver with effect from 8.2.1978 as done by the petitioners or with effect from 18.10.1974 as claimed by the respondent No. 3 and found by the Labour Court, Jodhpur. 7. The Labour Court, Jodhpur in the impugned judgment and award dated 2.12.1999 (Annex. 10) discussed and considered the entire evidence and affidavits produced by both the parties in an analytical manner and the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the relevant record was not produced by the petitioners in support of their contentions that the respondent No. 3 was not found suitable earlier to 8.2.1978 on the post of Driver and that the respondent No. 3 has not worked on the post of Driver continuously for one year with effect from 17.10.1973 and, therefore, adverse inference was drawn by the Labour Court against the petitioners and thus, on the basis of the evidence available on record and the letter No. 782 dated 18.8.1980 (Annex. R/3/4) of the Executive Engineer (TDIV), RSEB, Bhilwara, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 3 has worked continuously for one year on the post of Driver with effect from 17.10.1973 and, therefore, he was entitled to be regularised on the post of Driver with effect from 18.10.1974. The findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court are based on correct appreciation of evidence and material available on record. It cannot be said that the findings of the Labour Court are erroneous or perverse or patently unreasonable or based on no material or evidence. It also cannot be said that the Labour Court committed any illegality in holding that the respondent No. 3 was entitled to be regularised on the post of Driver with effect from 18.10.1974. The findings of the Labour Court do not suffer from any basic illegality or infirmity. 8. It also cannot be said that the Labour Court committed any illegality in holding that the respondent No. 3 was entitled to be regularised on the post of Driver with effect from 18.10.1974. The findings of the Labour Court do not suffer from any basic illegality or infirmity. 8. Thus, the findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court, just quoted above, are not to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India as this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India does not normally interfere with the findings of facts unless it is found to be based either on no evidence or that the findings are wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. This is not the case before this Court as the findings of facts arrived at by the Labour Court cannot be said to be based on no evidence for the simple reason that the documents of the petitioners themselves support the case of the respondent No. 3. 9. It may be stated here that the question of adequacy of evidence is outside the purview of writ jurisdiction and from this point of view also, the findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court are not be interfered with by this Court. 10. In my considered opinion, looking to the findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court, the letter Annex. 1 dated 13.3.1975 (Annex. 1), on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, would not be helpful to the petitioners for the simple reason that the said letter was not produced before the Labour Court nor specific plea in the reply (Annex. 5) to the claim (Annex. 4) of the respondent No. 3 was taken by the petitioners. Apart from this, from letter Annex. R/3/4 dated 18.8.1980, it is very much clear that the respondent No. 3 was driving the vehicle from 10.10.1973 continuously. 11. 5) to the claim (Annex. 4) of the respondent No. 3 was taken by the petitioners. Apart from this, from letter Annex. R/3/4 dated 18.8.1980, it is very much clear that the respondent No. 3 was driving the vehicle from 10.10.1973 continuously. 11. On point of delay, it may be stated here that the Labour Court entertained the claim petition of the respondent No. 3 after a reference was made to it by the Government on 8.8.1995 and there is no doubt that before the Labour Court, the grounds of delay and laches were taken, but they were not found favourable by the Labour Court and now under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, such ground of limitation should not be allowed to be agitated as even errors of law cannot be corrected by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and furthermore, a mere wrong decision without any thing more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to seeing that an inferior court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law and for that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and Ors. AIR 1984 Supreme Court 383 may be referred to and that decision also covers the point of limitation raised before the High Court. 12. So far as the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors. AIR 2000 Supreme Court 839 : 2000 (1) SLR 636 (SC) , is concerned, it may be stated here that the law laid down in that case does not help the petitioners in the manner that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case observed that for making reference by the Government, there was no time limit prescribed, but it does not mean that power can be exercised at any point of time meaning thereby that authority dealt with the point before the Labour Court and not High Court. Since the reference submitted by the Government has been entertained by the Labour Court and both the parties presented their claims and counter claims and led their evidence, therefore, in these circumstances, this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not interfere with the judgment and award of the Labour Court merely on the ground that the Labour Court entertained the claim with delay, especially when there is no period of limitation prescribed for reference. 13. Similarly, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Iron & Steel Co.Ltd. v. Prahlad Singh ( (2001) 1 SCC 424 ) would not be helpful to the petitioners so far as the point of limitation is concerned. 14. The argument that since the respondent No. 3 was found suitable by the Selection Committee for the post of Driver with effect from 8.2.1978, therefore, the respondent No. 3 was not entitled to regularisation on the post of Driver prior to that date, is concerned, in my considered opinion, the same would not be helpful to the petitioners for the simple reason that the respondent No. 3 was working on the post of Driver regularly with effect from 17.10.1973 and even Selection Committee nowhere has stated that the respondent No. 3 was not found suitable prior to 8.2.1978. Had the Selection Committee would have found the respondent No. 3 not suitable for the post of Driver prior to 8.2.1978, the argument of the petitioners would have been appreciated and in absence of that, that argument is not helpful to the petitioners. Hence, the law laid down in State of Orissa and Anr. v. Dr. Pyari Mohan Misra, (1995)3 SCC 12 : 1995 (1) SLR 694 (SC) and Mukesh Bhai Chhotabhai Patel v. Joint Agriculture & Marketing Advisor, Government of India and Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 36 : 1994 (5) SLR 175 (SC) , would not be helpful to the petitioners. 15. For the reasons stated above, no interference is called for with the imugned judgment and award dated 2.12.1999 (Annex. 10) passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and thus, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed. No order as to costs.Order accordingly. *******