Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-Heard at admission stage. 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer that the Judgment and award dated 210.2003 (Annexure 3) passed by the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur may be quashed and set aside. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 workman raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. However, the said conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report to the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government vide notification dated 06.03.2000 referred the matter for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur. 4. The learned Labour Court issued notices to the parties. The respondent No. 1 workman submitted statement of claim alleging, inter alia, that he was appointed as Chowkidar on 01.07.1996 and he worked under the petitioners till 25.01.1998 continuously. However, on 25.01.1998, his services were terminated by verbal order as in pursuance of order dated 19.01.1998 passed by the Director, another person namely, Sohan Singh was appointed. 5. It was also alleged that his services of the respondent No. 1 workman were terminated in flagrant violation of mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act of 1947"). 6. Written statement was filed by the petitioners in which it was alleged that hostel run by the Social Welfare Department does not fall within the definition of industry and, therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1947 are not applicable to the present case. It was also stated that the respondent No. 1 was engaged on part-time basis, till the availability or regular employee. The respondent No. 1 was never appointed as Class IV employee. The respondent No. 1 was engaged for a particular period and as soon as regular appointment was made, there was no requirement of his services, therefore, respondent No. 1 himself did not turn up for duty. Sohan Singh was appointed on regular basis, after following the due process of law. It was also stated that since the petitioner was not engaged prior to 01.05.1995, the question of his working for 240 days does not arise at all. 7. After recording evidence of both the parties, the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur vide its Judgment and award dated 22.10,2003 (Annexure 3), allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent No. 1 workman and directed for his reinstatement with 25% back-wages. 8. 7. After recording evidence of both the parties, the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur vide its Judgment and award dated 22.10,2003 (Annexure 3), allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent No. 1 workman and directed for his reinstatement with 25% back-wages. 8. The petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court, bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1013/2004, thereafter, withdrew the same, with liberty to file a fresh writ petition. Accordingly, the order dated 04.03.2004 was passed. 9. In the instant petition, the main contention of the petitioner is that the services of the respondent No.1 were not terminated by the petitioners. In fact, when Sohan Singh was appointed after regular process of selection, the respondent No. 1 himself left the services of the petitioner. It has also been submitted by the petitioners that the respondent No. 1 was appointed on part-time basis, till the regularly selected candidate is made available. The respondent No. 1 was aware of this fact and when the regularly selected candidate was made available, the respondent No. 1 himself left the services of the petitioners. 10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, at length and scrutinised and scanned the material available on record. 11. The learned Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact on the basis of material available on record that the respondent No. 1 has worked with the petitioners from 01.07.1996 to 25.01.1998 and has completed 240 days of service in a calendar year. The learned Labour Court also recorded the finding that petitioners have failed to prove that respondent No. 1 was appointed for a particular period. The learned Labour Court has further held that the services of the respondent No. 1 have been terminated which is evident from the application dated 28.01.1998, in which it has clearly been written that services of the respondent No. 1 are terminated on account of joining of services. Thus, before retrenching the services of the respondent No. 1, the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 has not been complied with. 12. In my considered opinion, the findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court are based on correct appreciation of entire evidence and material available on record and it cannot be said that the findings of the Labour Court are erroneous or perverse or patently unreasonable or based on no material on record. 12. In my considered opinion, the findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court are based on correct appreciation of entire evidence and material available on record and it cannot be said that the findings of the Labour Court are erroneous or perverse or patently unreasonable or based on no material on record. The findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court do not suffer from any basic illegality or infirmity. 13. Apart from that, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot interfere with the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the inferior Court or Tribunal, unless its findings are clearly perverse or patently unreasonable. While exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not act as a Court of appeal. 14. The High Courts power of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution would be restricted to interference in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law, and would be exercised most sparingly, in cases where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. It cannot be used as appellate or revisional power nor will the High Court, in exercise of this power, substitute its own Judgment for that of the inferior Court, whether on a question of fact, or of law, or interfere with the intra vires exercise of a discretionary power, unless it is arbitrary of capricious, or unless there was no evidence at all on which the inferior Court could have come to conclusion it did or there was error of finding on a jurisdictional fact. 15. From perusing the Judgment and award dated 210.2003 (Annexure 3) passed by the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur it does not reveal that there is patent illegality and irregularity or error of law apparent on the face of record and the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are perverse. 16. Thus, the Judgment and award dated 210.2003 (Annexure 3) passed by the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur cannot be said to be suffering from the basic infirmity and illegality and the same does not require any interference by this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 17. For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ petition is dismissed. No order as to