JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that the impugned order dated 24.02.2004 (Annexure-3) passed by the learned Labour Court, Kota in Application No. 54/2001 may kindly be quashed and set aside and he also prayed for any other appropriate order or direction in favour of the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, the Prahlad (respondent No.2) raised a dispute before the learned Labour Court which came to be decided on 09.11.1992 wherein it was claimed that the respondent No.2 was initially appointed on 21.04.1975 on muster roll on the post of SARANG Grade-II and in the eventuality of his two years continuous service he had been declared semi-permanent vide order No. 55 dated 03.01.1979 on the post of CHAWALIA. According to the respondent No. 2 he had been initially appointed on the post of SARANG Grade-II, hence he ought to have been declared semi-permanent on the post of SARANG Grade-II instead of CHAWALIA. The award passed by the learned Labour Court was an ex parte award and hence the material contentions controverting the facts and circumstances of the case could not be brought before the learned Tribunal, therefore, the petitioner department filed an application for recalling the ex parte award which came to be rejected on 12.03.1996. 3. Against the ex parte award the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court which was decided against the petitioner-department on 06.02.2001. Against the said judgment the petitioner-department filed a special appeal (writ) against the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge numbered as D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 936/2001 and is still pending for decision. 4. The respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 33-C(2) before the learned Labour Court, Kota wherein the petitioner-department filed a reply contending that the award dated 09.11.1992 which is the bone of contention to the present application, is already under adjudication of this Hon'ble Court in D.B. Special Appeal and hence the application does not deserve any interference. 5. The learned Labour Court after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and perusing the evidence available on record vide impugned award dated 24.02.2004 passed the award against the petitioner. Hence, aggrieved against the said award of the labour Court dated 24.02.2004, the petitioner-department filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent Mr. Hence, aggrieved against the said award of the labour Court dated 24.02.2004, the petitioner-department filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent Mr. K.C. Sharma has cited a judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court numbered as S.B.C.W. Petition No. 4251/1996; Suptd. Engineer Irrigation PRS DAM & Ors. v. General Secretary, RPS & Jawahar Sagar Dam Employee Union & Ors. 7. The Division Bench of this court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 423/1997 Management M/s. Bharatpur Nutritional Products Ltd. v. Ishwar Chand and in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 422/1997, The Management M/s. Bharatpur Nutritional Products Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan has considered the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant portion of the aforesaid case runs as under : "Having carefully scanned the impugned order, I notice that all the contentions raised before me were analyzed and considered in great details by the Labour Court. The scope of supervisory jurisdiction explained by the Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Company Ltd. [2003(2) WLC (SC) Civil 255 : 2003(3) S.C.C. 524 ] which runs in (Para-7) : "The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision." 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. The wide jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 has to be exercised with great circumspection. The High Court cannot constitute, itself into an appellate court over Tribunals. Article 226/227 is a device to secure and advance justice and not otherwise. In a case of this nature, it is true, the High Court exercising the power of judicial review, would not interfere with the discretion of a Tribunal unless the same is found to be illegal or irrational. Article 226/227 is a device to secure and advance justice and not otherwise. In a case of this nature, it is true, the High Court exercising the power of judicial review, would not interfere with the discretion of a Tribunal unless the same is found to be illegal or irrational. In an application for a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an award of an Industrial Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the High Court is very limited. It can quash the award, inter alia, when the Tribunal has committed an error of law apparent on the face of record or when the finding of facts of the Tribunal is wholly perverse. It is also a settled law that in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court acts only in a supervisory capacity and not as an appellate tribunal. It does not review the evidence upon which the inferior tribunal proposed to base its conclusion, it simply demolished the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or manifestly erroneous, but does not, as a rule, substitute its own view for those of the inferior tribunal. 10. In the present matter, I do not find any jurisdictional error, perversity and illegality in the award passed by the labour court. The finding of the labour court is based on the basis of material placed before him. There is no error apparent in the face on record. I, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the award. In my view the writ petition does not call for any interference. The same is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******