Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the award dated 28.01.2005 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara in Labour Case No. 112/97. 2. In brief , the facts of the case are that the appropriate Government by a notification dated 110.1997 referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court Bhilwara in terms as to whether the termination of workman Shri Narayan S/o Shri Ram by the Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Division II, Chittorgarh w.e.f. 06.01.1990, is valid and proper, if not, then for what relief , the workman is entitled. 3. The Labour Court after adjudicating the entire material available on record, reached at the conclusion that even according to the list Exhibit-D-2 produced by the employer the workman was in continuous employment of the employer and he was retrenched from service without adhering mandatory condition precedent for a valid retrenchment. The Labour Court accordingly while answering the reference, ordered for reinstatement of the workman with 50% of the back wages from the date of retrenchment. 4. While giving challenge to the award impugned, it is urged by Counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court erred while computing number of working days of the petitioner and, therefore, reached at an erroneous conclusion to the effect that the workman was in continuous service of the employer as prescribed under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and perused the award impugned. 6. From the facts discussed in the award impugned, it is apparent that the Labour Court after considering the entire evidence available on record, specially on basis of document Exhibit-D-2, reached at a specific conclusion, that the workman was in employment of petitioner from the month of October 1997 to September 1999 without any interruption. The finding given by the Labour Court is based on sound appreciation of evidence available on record. No error apparent on face of the record is there, which may warrant interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, this petition for writ is dismissed. No order as to costs.