JUDGMENT : M.M. Das, J. - This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Management with the following prayer: In the circumstances, your humble Petitioner most respectfully and fervently prays that this Writ Petition may kindly be admitted for hearing and after notice to the Opp. Parties, if they appear and contest, the parties so appearing may be heard and the impugned award may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the Labour Court for giving an award in accordance with law 2. The award under challenge was passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No. 61 of 1998 on 10.12.2001. An Industrial dispute was raised by fifty-nine N.M. Rs. through the Orissa State Electricity Board, Sramik Mahasangha, Bhubaneswar. The conciliation having failed and failure report sent to the appropriate Ministry, a reference was made to the Labour Court u/s 10 of the I.D. Act to the following effect: Whether the action of the Executive Engineer, Bhubaneswar Electrical Division (GRIDCO), Bhubaneswar in terminating the service of Sri P.C. Behera and 58 others with effect from the date mentioned against each as per list by way of refusal of employment are legal and/or justified? If not, what relief they are entitled to? 3. After Notice being issued, the workmen filed their claim statements before the Labour Court and the Petitioner- management filed its written statement. Considering the same, the Presiding Officer framed two issues as follows: (i) Whether the action of the Executive Engineer, Bhubaneswar Electrical Division (GRIDCO), Bhubaneswar in terminating the service of Sri P.C. Behera and 58 others with effect from the date mentioned against each as per list in (Annexure-B) by way of refusal of employment are legal and/or justified? (ii) If not what relief they are entitled to? 4. Four witnesses were examined by the workmen and five on behalf of the Petitioner-management. Relevant documents were produced by the parties before the Presiding Officer. 5. The workmen in the claim statement averred that they were the workers under the Bhubaneswar Electrical Division, of erstwhile GRIDCO, Now CESCO, from the year 1985, in different Electrical Sections. Subsequently, CESCO took over all rights and liabilities and they continued to work under the CESCO. Relevant documents were produced by the parties before the Presiding Officer. 5. The workmen in the claim statement averred that they were the workers under the Bhubaneswar Electrical Division, of erstwhile GRIDCO, Now CESCO, from the year 1985, in different Electrical Sections. Subsequently, CESCO took over all rights and liabilities and they continued to work under the CESCO. According to the workmen, they are senior to the persons who have already been regularized in 1995 and 1996 by the Executive Engineer, out the present workmen were retrenched from cervices even though they worked for more than 400 days and for that matter for 240 days preceding their termination within 12 calendar months. On this ground, they pleaded that their termination/retrenchment is illegal being in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. 6. The Petitioner-management did not deny the fact that the workmen were working under it. But it was pleaded that they were casual workers on being engaged as and when work was available and denied the case of the workmen regarding violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. 7. Mr. Pattnaik, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, vehemently, urged that if the materials produced before the Labour Court by the workmen is considered, it would be seen that they have failed to prove that they continuously worked for 240 days preceding their retrenchment in 12 Calendar months. He took this Court through the evidence of the workmen adduced before the Labour Court and the documents produced by the Petitioner- management and contended that the claim of the workmen having not been established, the conclusion of the Labour Court in the award is illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. Mr. Somnath Mishra appearing for the Opposite Party No. 1 workmen, per contra, submitted that the Writ Petition being one with a prayer for issuance of writ of certiorari, this Court should hot reappreciate the evidence adduced before the Labour Court afresh nor should come to a contrary conclusion on facts as found by the Labour Court in the impugned award. Somnath Mishra appearing for the Opposite Party No. 1 workmen, per contra, submitted that the Writ Petition being one with a prayer for issuance of writ of certiorari, this Court should hot reappreciate the evidence adduced before the Labour Court afresh nor should come to a contrary conclusion on facts as found by the Labour Court in the impugned award. He further contended that the Labour Court having meticulously analyzed the oral as well as the documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties before: arriving at the findings of facts the same cannot be reopened in a certiorari proceeding unless it is shown that such findings are perverse or erroneous and the award is illegal on the face of fit. Mr. Mishra drew the attention of this Court to Annexure-6/3 annexed by the Petitioner to the Writ Petition, wherein the Executive Engineer, B.E.D., Bhubaneswar by his letter dated 27.6.1996 wrote to the Under Secretary-II, GRIDCO, Bhubaneswar for regularization of N.M.R./C.L.R. workers, wherein the Executive Engineer stated as follows: With reference to above, I am to intimate you that, a detail list of NMR/CLR, workers of the Division is submitted herewith for further action at your end. In this connection, I am to mention here that out of the detaillist some NMR/CLR personnel under P.E.D., Puri, N.E.D. Nayagarh prior to creation of this Division, i.e., 11/85 and their services could not be regularized and they were not in roll during 4/95 onwards. At present different NMRs engaged have filed claim at Bhubaneswar Labour Court, Bhubaneswar/High Court, Orissa for their regularization. In view of the above the case of the above NMR/CLR workers need consideration to be regularized as they have worked more than 400 days as NMR/CLR till 10/91 and worked till 3/95. Basing on the said annexure, Mr. Mishra submitted that the Petitioner-management has admitted that the workmen have worked for more than 400 days and in the oral evidence, the workmen have stated in detail, the period for which they were engaged. Relying upon the above, the Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the Petitioner-management has retrenched the workmen in contravention of the provision of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. 9. Relying upon the above, the Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the Petitioner-management has retrenched the workmen in contravention of the provision of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. 9. Be it stated here that in this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari and the scope of issuance of such a writ was detailly (Sic) dealt with in the case of Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Others. In the said Constitution Bench decision justice P.B. Gajendragadkar (as he then was) speaking for the majority held that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari, is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an Appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or tribunal as a result of appreciation of evidence, cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law, which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, cannot, however, be challenged in a proceeding for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding being within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, such points cannot be agitated before a Writ Court. It has been further held in the said decision that an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari must be one which is apparent on the face of record. 10. It has been further held in the said decision that an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari must be one which is apparent on the face of record. 10. I have carefully considered the impugned award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and applying the ratio of the above decision of the Supreme Court to the facts of this case, I find that the Petitioner-management has failed to make out a case, where this Court should exercise its plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing a writ of certiorari, as no error of law appears to have been committed on the face of the impugned award and the conclusion on the questions of fact has been arrived by the Labour Court after meticulously analyzing the evidence adduced before him, I hold that there is no ground what so ever to interfere with the impugned award with respect to the findings that the workmen have been retrenched contrary to the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. 11. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court having found that the workmen except Shri Surendra Kumar Jena and Shri Ashok Kumar Mallick have completed 240 days in 12 Calendar months preceding the date of refusal of employment and they are entitled to protection u/s 25F of the I.D. Act. The same having not been complied with, their termination/refusal of employment is illegal and unjustified. This Court, therefore, confirms the said conclusions, which are based on findings of fact. 12. Basing on the above findings, reinstatement of the workmen with 80% back wages has been directed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and the Management has been further directed to implement the award, within a period of one month from the date of its publication in the official gazette and while implementing the award, the management should get the workmen identified through the representative-union, i.e., O.S.E.B., Shramik Mahasangha, Bhubaneswar. The Labour Court has further directed that if the award is not implemented, the workmen will be entitled to interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the dates specified and the same shall be payable till the date of actual payment. 13. The Labour Court has further directed that if the award is not implemented, the workmen will be entitled to interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the dates specified and the same shall be payable till the date of actual payment. 13. In view of the above conclusion of this Court, the only other point to be examined is to whether the Labour Court in directing payment of 80% back wages to the workmen and if not reinstated, within the period stipulated for payment of interest at the rate of 15% per annum, within the date of actual payment, can be sustained or not. 14. In this regard, law is well settled that in a case, while ordering reinstatement, back wages may not be paid and such directions for payment of back wages would depend upon facts and circumstances of the case. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Braja Kishore Pradhan v. Tribal Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and Anr. 74 (1992) C.L.T. 248, being posed with a similar question, examining the facts of the said case and coming to hold that possibility of the workmen being employed somewhere else or otherwise gainfully engaged during the period in question, cannot be ruled out, while directing reinstatement of the Petitioner in the said case did not direct for payment of back wages. 15. This Court is conscious of several decisions of the Supreme Court where, while directing reinstatement, the Court has also directed to pay back wages. But, it cannot be said that once reinstatement of a workman is directed, it would necessarily follow by an order directing payment of back wages. Such direction would always depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 16. In the present case, individual affidavits have been filed by the workmen before this Court categorically, making a statement on oath that they have not been gainfully employed anywhere from the date of their retrenchments/terminations. This Court, therefore, feels it appropriate that the workmen in the facts of the present case should be paid 50% of their back wages without any interest. 17. In the result, therefore, the impugned award is confirmed with regard to the direction for reinstatement of the Opp. This Court, therefore, feels it appropriate that the workmen in the facts of the present case should be paid 50% of their back wages without any interest. 17. In the result, therefore, the impugned award is confirmed with regard to the direction for reinstatement of the Opp. Parties-workmen and the direction with regard to the payment of back wages is modified to the extent that they would be entitled to payment of 50% of the back wages from the date of their retrenchment/termination till the date of reinstatement, without any interest thereon. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in part, but in the circumstances without any cost. The directions issued above shall be implemented by the Petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.