Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of award dated 6.3.2006, Annexure P.12. 2. The petition has been filed on 10.10.2007 i.e. after one and a half years of the award having been published. The issue referred for adjudication before the Labour Court related to validity of order dated 17.31.1992 by which the petitioner-workman was dismissed from service. Stand of the workman was that he was not given reasonable and equal opportunity to defend himself and the order of dismissal was not justified. 3. The management contested the claim and stated that the enquiry was fair and proper and the order of dismissal was justified. 4. The issue was decided against the workman vide award dated 24.5.1996. The workman preferred a writ petition being CWP No. 18154 of 1996, before this Court which was disposed of on 31.3.1998 by holding that even after holding that the enquiry was fair, the Labour Court was required to appreciate the evidence on record in the light of provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short `the Act), as interpreted by the Honble Supreme Court in The Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India P. Limited v. The Management and others, AIR 1973 SC 1227. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Labour Court to frame issues on merit and allow the parties to lead evidence, if not already led and dispose of the same in accordance with law. 5. The said order was affirmed in LPA No. 232 of 1998 decided on 26.2.2004. 6. Accordingly, the Labour Court framed issues and recorded evidence. Following issues were framed :- "(1 A) Whether the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer were proper as alleged ? OPW (2) Whether the demands mentioned in the demand notice dated 15th May, 1992 made by the President, Indian Express Employees Union, Chandigarh are genuine and justified, if so to what effect and to what relief the union is entitled to if any ? OPW. (3) Whether the penalty of dismissal indicated on Dev Raj appellant is mala fide, uncalled for unwarranted, unjustified, arbitrary, illegal against principle of natural justice, inequitable, vitiated by bias and vendetta unsustainable and void as alleged, if so, its effect ? OPW (4) Whether Dev Raj applicant is protected worker as alleged, if so, effect ? OPW. (3) Whether the penalty of dismissal indicated on Dev Raj appellant is mala fide, uncalled for unwarranted, unjustified, arbitrary, illegal against principle of natural justice, inequitable, vitiated by bias and vendetta unsustainable and void as alleged, if so, its effect ? OPW (4) Whether Dev Raj applicant is protected worker as alleged, if so, effect ? OPW (5) Relief." The Labour Court found that in respect of the first charge sheet dated 14.2.1991, alleging instigation for organising a strike on 26.1.1991, making provocative speech for that purpose, not permitting the willing employees to resume their duty, except the charge of abusing the officers of the management, all other charges were proved. As regards second charge sheet dated 18.7.1991, alleging use of abusive language, exhibiting posters, giving of threats, the charges were held to have been proved. 7 The Labour Court referred to the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Gur Pratap Singh Bedi v. State of Punjab and another, 1976(1) SCC 526, Bengal Bhatdee Coal Co. Limited v. Ram Probesh Singh and others. AIR 1964 SC 486. Messrs Bhart Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and others, 1976(l) SCC 518, Hamdard Dawakhana Wakf v. Its Workmen and others, 1962(2) LLJ 772 and judgment of Labour Appellate Tribunal (Wrongly mentioned as judgment of the Honble Supreme Court) in Titagarh Paper Mills Limited (No.1) v. Paper Mills Employees Union, 1957 LLJ (2) 550, to hold that the allegations proved against the workman amounted to misconduct and could not be held to be victimisation. 8. As regards Issue Nos. 2 and 3, it was held that no interference was called for on the quantum of punishment. On Issue No.4, it was held that the workman was not a protected workman at the relevant time and even otherwise, his being a protected workman did not affect the punishment imposed in absence of pendency of any other dispute. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 10. It is well settled that findings recorded by an Industrial Tribunal are not open to be re-appreciated in a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 10. It is well settled that findings recorded by an Industrial Tribunal are not open to be re-appreciated in a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reference may be made to judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in syed Yakoob v. Radlia Krishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477, Paras 7 and 8, State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao, AIR 1975 SC 2151, J.D. Jain v. Management of State Bank of India, AIR 1982 SC 673 : [1981(3) SLR 175 (SC] Para 11 and Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625, Paras 16 and 17. Similar view has also been taken with reference to jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution in Estralla Rubber, M/s. v. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 3295. 11. We find that the Enquiry Officer in his report Annexure P.6 has held the charges to be proved and after giving the workman an opportunity, order of dismissal was passed. The Labour Court under Issue No. 1A has analysed the evidence on record and recorded a finding in para 19 that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were based on evidence and were justified. The Labour Court has also referred to the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, holding that in such a situation, action of the workman will amount to misconduct of indiscipline for which punishment of dismissal could be imposed. We are unable to hold that the findings recorded by the Tribunal suffer from any patent error of law or that the finding of misconduct was perverse. 12. At page 51 of the paper-book, we find that as per statement of Santosh Kumar, MW-3 on 14.2.1991 at 2 PM, his car was blocked by forming human chain by the office bearers of the Union led by the petitioner and he was not allowed to proceed. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the demand of the workmen was that they were entitled to holiday on 26.1.2007, which was a genuine demand and subsequent acts were related to a genuine demand. The strike was not declared illegal. 14. The plea cannot be accepted. Mere making a demand will not be misconduct provided no force is used and no indiscipline is created. The strike was not declared illegal. 14. The plea cannot be accepted. Mere making a demand will not be misconduct provided no force is used and no indiscipline is created. It is on record that the petitioner led the workmen to block the passage of the officer by forming a human chain, which clearly amounted to misconduct. 15. No interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is called for. 16. The petition is dismissed.