V. C. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Sheshadhari Trivedi, Advocate holding brief for Sri Samir Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y. K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 and learned Standing counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the award-dated 9th March, 1989 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) given by the Labour Court- respondent No. 2 entitling respondent No. 3-workman to be reinstated with continuity of service along with back wages and the order dated 23. 7. 1988 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition ). The Labour Court for deciding the case framed two issues, as under: (i) Whether both the domestic inquires initiated against the workman were just and proper in accordance with the principles of natural justice? (ii) Whether the reference was bad in law as mentioned in paras 1, 2, and 4 of the written statement of the employer? the Labour Court decided the said issues in favour of the respondent No. 3-workman. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner- U. P. Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the employer) terminated the services of respondent No. 3-workman who was posted as conductor after holding a disciplinary proceeding. The workman-respondent no. 3 raised industrial dispute and the matter was referred to the Labour Court- respondent No. 2 by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The written statements and the rejoinder affidavits were filed by the parties to the dispute before the Labour Court. The petitioner also filed photostat copies of the documents pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent No. 3-workman which as per the record, were not readable: As per the order-sheets filed as Annexure c. A.-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, several opportunities were provided to the petitioner-employer to produce the entire original record pertaining the disciplinary proceedings, inasmuch as 5 opportunities, beginning from 2. 4. 1987, and lastly on 29. 3. 1988, but on that date also since no original documents had been filed before the Labour court, it had no option but to proceed with the case. 4. 1987, and lastly on 29. 3. 1988, but on that date also since no original documents had been filed before the Labour court, it had no option but to proceed with the case. It passed an order that photostat copies of the documents, filed by the petitioner were unreadable and in absence of the original documents, the same could not be read in evidence. ( 4 ) THE Labour Court vide its order dated 23. 7. 1988 held that the domestic inquiry was not fair and proper, as the original copies of the documents had not been filed, and the photostat copies were unreadable. The case was fixed for producing addition evidence in the proceedings on 19. 8. 1988. No additional evidence was produced by the employer in spite of the fact that time had been granted on 13. 1. 1989 and 7. 2. 1989, rather on 7. 2. 1989 both the parties to the proceedings declined to produce any further evidence. Accordingly, the Labour Court, after hearing the representatives of the parties to the dispute reserved its judgment, and subsequently passed the impugned award dated 9. 3. 1989 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) against the employer and in favour of the respondent No. 3-workman. ( 5 ) THE petitioner, being aggrieved by the said award, filed the present writ petition. ( 6 ) I have looked into the record of the case and heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and find that after thorough examination and critical scrutiny of the pleadings and the material on record and the relevant evidence submitted by the parties, the Labour Court-respondent No. 2 has on the basis of findings of fact arrived at a well reasoned conclusion in its impugned award dated 9. 3. 1989 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition ). The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate before this Court that the findings of fact recorded in impugned award suffer from any illegality, perversity or error apparent on the face of the record. More so, the said findings of fact arrived at by the respondent No. 2 on the basis of which the impugned award has been passed being based on relevant material on record are not open to challenge before this Court while exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. More so, the said findings of fact arrived at by the respondent No. 2 on the basis of which the impugned award has been passed being based on relevant material on record are not open to challenge before this Court while exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 7 ) IN view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case and observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 16. 10. 1989 stands vacated. No order as to costs. . .