Judgment :- 1. Petitioner seeks writ of certiorari calling for the records of the order of the 1st Respondent in I.D.No.33 of 1998 dated 18.04.2000 and quash the same. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: .(i) The Petitioner Airport Authority of India employed contract employees through Balaji Telecom Services, the 3rd Respondent herein for providing telephone operators for the purpose of operating the switch board in the petitioner Airport Authority. 8 such operators working under the 3rd Respondent. .(ii) By the notification dated 02.03.1993, the Ministry of Labour of the Government of India prohibited employment of contract labourers in the job of telephone operators in the establishment of the Petitioner Airport Authority. On that basis and on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Air India statutory Corporation, the matter was considered and the Headquarters of the Petitioner Airport Authority of India took a decision that posts will be filled up on the regular basis and the existing system of employing persons through contractors will be dispensed with. The guidelines mentioned in the notification stated that posts must be filled up by candidates sponsored through employment exchange or open advertisement as the case may be considered subject to their meeting the job specifications. The job specification was that the candidates should be graduates having 2 years of working experience as telephone operators and less than 35 years, but as a special case, the age would be relaxed in their cases. These guidelines were marked as Ex.M.6 before the 1st Respondent. (iii) Case of the 2nd Respondent is that she was working as telephone operator in the office of Petitioner Anna Airport from 27.03.1992 and the salary was paid by the writ petitioner through one Hi-tech Engineers and then one Balaji Telecom service from 01.07.1992. According to 2nd Respondent daily attendance register and lock book were maintained by the Petitioner. The 2nd Respondent submitted the representation on 110. 1995 requesting the Airport authority to observe her permanently in the post of telephone operator. The writ petitioner asked the 2nd Respondent to submit her bio-data, educational qualification certificates and other certificates. She has further averred that on 01.02.1996 employment was refused to her without any reason; but other persons even her juniors were absorbed permanently. 1995 requesting the Airport authority to observe her permanently in the post of telephone operator. The writ petitioner asked the 2nd Respondent to submit her bio-data, educational qualification certificates and other certificates. She has further averred that on 01.02.1996 employment was refused to her without any reason; but other persons even her juniors were absorbed permanently. Subsequently the 2nd Respondent alone was sent out unceremoniously and in violation of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and in violation of the principles of natural justice. .(iv) 2nd Respondent filed a writ petition No.2457/96 praying for a direction to the Petitioner Management to absorb the 2nd Respondent as an employee with all consequential benefits, which was dismissed by the High Court on 01.03.1996. Thereafter the 2nd Respondent raised a dispute and on failure of conciliation, the same was referred to adjudication, the issue for reference being whether the demand of 2nd Respondent for absorption of service by the Petitioner Management was justified and, if not, to what relief she was entitled to. (v) Writ petitioner Management resisted the petition contending that the contract between the Management and the 2nd Respondent was terminated on 31.03.1997 pursuant to the decision taken by the Head office to abolish the contract labour in the job of telephone operator. As per the decision the candidates who are experienced in working with the contractor would be considered on a permanent basis subject to their meeting the requirement of job specifications. According to writ petitioner, 2nd Respondent did not have the required qualification as per the job specification. Since she was not a graduate and therefore the Petitioner could not be considered. .(vi) Pointing out that the Management has relaxed the qualification in respect of one Savitha Abrol and one Kantha who were far junior to the Petitioner, Labour Court held that the Authority should have recommended for the relaxation of qualification in the case of 2nd Respondent also. Labour Court rejected the contention of the Management that the Petitioner was not working with the contractor at the time of scrutiny of application and held that it is not condition precedent for absorption. Labour court inter-alia observed that the demand of the Petitioner for absorption of her service by the Management of Airport Authority is justified. Labour court granted the relief of absorption along with 50% backwages continuity of service and other benefits. Labour court inter-alia observed that the demand of the Petitioner for absorption of her service by the Management of Airport Authority is justified. Labour court granted the relief of absorption along with 50% backwages continuity of service and other benefits. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, Management has filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Mangament Mrs. Narmada Sampath, contended that Labour Court had not at all considered the aspect whether the 2nd Respondent was workmen or not or whether the employee of the contractor. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted when the 2nd Respondent was not employed by the contractor the question of absorption does not arise. Learned counsel further argued that the 2nd Respondent did not meet the job specifications as she was not a graduate. It was further argued that relaxation granted only as per age and no relaxation of educational qualification was granted to any candidate and while so the 2nd Respondent cannot allege any malafide to the selection process. .4. Taking me through the award of the Labour Court the learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent contended that Labour Court has recorded clear finding that in respect of three candidates, petitioner management has given relaxation by educational qualification, while so the 2nd Respondent was victimized by the writ petitioner Management. The learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent further submitted that after analyzing the evidence and factual aspects Labour Court has arrived at the conclusion that the denial of absorption of the 2nd Respondent as telephone operator is wilful and wanton and motivated since she has raised a dispute. The learned counsel would further submit that the conclusion and finding reached by the Tribunal is purely based on facts and there is no illegality or perversity in the award. 5. The Petitioner Airport Authority of India employed the 2nd Respondent P. Nirmala as telephone operator through a contractor -the 3rd Respondent for more than four years continuously. The 3rd Respondent M/s. Balaji Telecom Services is a contractor who entered into EX.M.1 agreement dated 31.07.1992 to man the telephone exchange at the International Terminal of the Madras Airport of the writ petitioner Management w.e.f 01.08.1992. Contract of the 3rd Respondent was extended by the writ petitioner Management by Exs.M.2 and M3 agreement dated 011. 1994 and 210. 1996. 6. Contract of the 3rd Respondent was extended by the writ petitioner Management by Exs.M.2 and M3 agreement dated 011. 1994 and 210. 1996. 6. Government of India issued notification dated 02.03.1993, abolishing the contract system and prohibited the employment of telephone operators through contractors. Since the contract system was abolished, the 2nd Respondent submitted a representation dated 110. 1995 to the Petitioner requesting to absorb her permanently in the post of telephone operator. The 3rd Respondent by the letter dated 012. 1995 asked her to submit all the details. The 2nd Respondent was disengaged after 31.01.1996. 7. In view of abolition of contract on 110. 1996, writ petitioner Management sent Ex.M.6 letter to fill the posts through candidates sponsored by employment exchange or open advertisements and candidates who had experience of working with the contractor would be considered subject to their meeting the job specifications and age shall be relaxed in their case. In the proforma attached with Ex.M.6 letter the qualification described is graduate, those holding certificates in operation of EPABX from a recognized institute and experience of two years as telephone operator will be preferred. .8. 2nd Respondent and eight others who were employed under the contractor applied for recruitment by the writ petitioner Management. The employment exchange sponsored 81 names in the year 1997 and 66 candidates sent their bio-data. On scrutiny it was found that 32 candidates were found eligible as per specifications. Nine candidates including the 2nd Respondent who were erstwhile telephone operators under the 3rd Respondent contractor were also chosen. At the time of consideration, the 2nd Respondent was not a graduate, but she was studying M.A. degree in Annamalai University(since completed). Since the 2nd Respondent was not a graduate she was not included in the panel and eight other telephone operators who are said to have fulfilled the required specifications were included in the panel of candidates. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner Management mainly contended that the 2nd Respondent was not included in the panel mainly because she did not meet the job specifications. Referring to evidence of M.W.1 the Labour Court has recorded clear finding of fact that one Savitha Abrol and Kantha mentioned in Ex.M.8 and M.9 were also not graduates. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner Management mainly contended that the 2nd Respondent was not included in the panel mainly because she did not meet the job specifications. Referring to evidence of M.W.1 the Labour Court has recorded clear finding of fact that one Savitha Abrol and Kantha mentioned in Ex.M.8 and M.9 were also not graduates. Labour Court pointed out that though Savitha Abrol and Kantha did not possess the required qualification Savitha Abrol and Kantha were appointed at Delhi due to the relaxation granted by the chairman of Airport Authority of India. Labour Court has also recorded clear finding that the Management had relaxed educational qualification in the case of two other women candidates i.e. Savitha Abrol and Kantha for appointment as telephone operators who were not graduates and in the case of Anuradha far junior of the 2nd Respondent, shortage of three months experience was condoned. The Labour Court pointed out that Management has chosen to relax the required qualifications in respect of other candidates and exclusion of the Petitioner is wanton and malafide as the 2nd Respondent has already raised a industrial dispute. 10. Regarding the relaxation to other candidates learned counsel for the Petitioner Management contended that 2nd Respondent had not come out with correct facts. The learned counsel would submit that Savitha Abrol and Kantha were taken as employees under contractor, where as 2nd Respondent was considered as fresh candidate and therefore the 2nd Respondent cannot claim to be on par with other candidates to whom relaxation was given. .11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner nextly contended that 2nd Respondent was considered on par with other candidates on open market and that she was found ineligible. It was further argued that earlier termination by contractor had become final and while now the 2nd Respondent cannot seek absorption. The above contention does not merit acceptance. 12. As pointed out earlier when the matter was pending before the Conciliation Officer, Management requested the Competent Authority to direct the 2nd Respondent to submit documents for considering the case of the 2nd Respondent. The 2nd Respondent was asked to submit documents showing that she served under the contractor and other documents that she meets the job specifications. 12. As pointed out earlier when the matter was pending before the Conciliation Officer, Management requested the Competent Authority to direct the 2nd Respondent to submit documents for considering the case of the 2nd Respondent. The 2nd Respondent was asked to submit documents showing that she served under the contractor and other documents that she meets the job specifications. Having indicated before the Conciliation Officer directing the 2nd Respondent to submit documents, it is not open to writ petitioner Management to contend that the 2nd Respondent was treated on par with other fresh candidates. 13. As pointed out by the Labour Court educational qualification was not strictly considered by the writ petitioner Management. When Management has chosen to relax the educational qualification in respect of two women candidates Savitha Abrol and Kantha and in case of Anuradha relaxing shortage of three months experience, Labour Court rightly held that the exclusion of 2nd Respondent as deliberate and willfull as the Petitioner has raised the industrial dispute before the selection. The finding of Labour Court is based on oral evidence of M.W.1 and Exs.M8, M9 and M5. When the conclusion and findings of Labour Court is based on facts, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be interfered with. 14. Referring to various documents, Labour Court has also pointed out the merits of the 2nd Respondent. Ex.W.1 merit certificate of the 2nd Respondent that 2nd Respondent secured first rank in the batch of 18 candidates in the training course of telephone operator. In Ex.W.2, it is mentioned that 2nd Respondents performance is excellent i.e. 75% and above. The 3rd Respondent contractor issued Ex.W.14 certificate where in, it is mentioned the 2nd Respondents service as telephone operator and her conduct and character are satisfactory and appreciable. From Ex.W.6 certificate, Labour Court pointed out that the Petitioner has worked from 30.04.1992 till 31.01.1996 for a period of 3½ years. As rightly pointed out by Labour Court, having regard to the merits of the 2nd Respondent, the writ petitioner Management ought to have considered the case of the 2nd Respondent for relaxation of educational qualification as in the case of other candidates. 15. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner Management nextly contended that number of persons were appointed at least eight persons who were working under the contractor appointed and all these appointees are necessary parties. 15. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner Management nextly contended that number of persons were appointed at least eight persons who were working under the contractor appointed and all these appointees are necessary parties. Placing reliance upon (1998) 5 SCC 583 State of Kerala vs W.I. Services & Estates Limited and others, it was contended that in the absence of selected candidates being impleaded as Respondents writ petition is not maintainable. The said case relates to selection in respect of allotment of project of liquid fuel linkage for their Independent Power Projects. The ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the facts of present case. The Petitioner has raised an industrial dispute and where in the method of selection is challenged and the 2nd Respondent is alleged to have been singled out and therefore it is not necessary to implead individual parties. The order of reference cannot be enlarged by impleading others and going in to their appointments and selection. 16. 2nd Respondent was disengaged from the service of the contractor from 31.01.1996. Placing reliance upon 1998 Writ L.R. 544 Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd etc. Vs. The Regional Labour Commissioner, Sastry Bhavan, it was contended that there is no provision in the Act for absorption of the employees whose contract labour system stood abolished. The above decision is not applicable to the facts of present case. Ex.M.6 letter was issued by the Authority calling upon the candidates having experience with contractor to be considered. Writ petitioner Management did infact absorb other candidates working with the contractor. Having issued Ex.M.6 letter and having absorbed other employees working under contractor, it is not open to the Petitioner to contend that there is no provision for absorption of employees working under contractor. 17. Placing reliance upon AIR 1984 SC 1255 N.C. Singhal vs. Union of India; (1997) 4 SCC 18 Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Chander Shekhar, learned counsel for the Petitioner Management contended that subsequent acquisition of qualification (M.A.degree) is not relevant to be considered. Of course 2nd Respondent was not a graduate at the time when her name was considered. The case of 2nd Respondent is that having relaxed educational qualification for recruitment of Savitha Abrol and Kantha the writ petitioner Management ought to have relaxed the same for the 2nd Respondent also. It is in this context that subsequent acquisition of M.A.degree is put forth by the 2nd Respondent. The case of 2nd Respondent is that having relaxed educational qualification for recruitment of Savitha Abrol and Kantha the writ petitioner Management ought to have relaxed the same for the 2nd Respondent also. It is in this context that subsequent acquisition of M.A.degree is put forth by the 2nd Respondent. 118. While passing order for absorption Labour Court has ordered payment of 50% back wages. The 2nd Respondent was out of employment from 31.01.1996 the award passed on 18.04.2000. When relief of absorption/reinstatement is ordered backwages is not to be given automatically. Each case must be considered on its own merits by taking into consideration the period of service and other relevant circumstances and pass appropriate order, keeping in view the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. 119. In (2005 (3) L.L.N. 754), General Manager, Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh the Honble Supreme Court has held that there is no rule of thumb that in each and every case, where the Industrial Tribunal records a finding that the order of termination of service was illegal that an employee is entitled to full backwages. A host of factors, which are relevant, must be taken into account. .20. In para 8 Honble Supreme Court has further held as under: ."There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination of service was in violation of S.25F of the Act, entire backwages should be awarded. A host of factors like the manner and method of selection and appointment, i.e., whether after proper advertisements of the vacancy or inviting applications from the Employment Exchange, nature of appointment, namely, whether ad hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of backwages. One of the important factors, which has to be taken into consideration, is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial backwages keeping in view the fact that at his age and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial backwages keeping in view the fact that at his age and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However, where that total length of service rendered by workman is very small, the award of backwages for the complete period, i.e., from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. Another important factor, which requires to be taken into consideration is the nature of employment. A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calendar year." 121. The question of backwages is being independent question as to entitlement to absorption. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case and the length of service of the 2nd Respondent, the order of the Labour Court awarding 50% backwages cannot be sustained. 122. The order of absorption passed by the Labour Court is based on facts and evidence. The writ jurisdiction or supervisory jurisdiction is not to be exercised to correct mere error of fact or law unless an error is manifest and apparent on the face of the record such as when it is based on a clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and grave injustice is occasioned thereby. .23. In Waryam Singh Vs. Amarnath (1954 S.C.R.565), Honble Supreme Court held that power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is to be exercised more sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their Authority and not for correcting mere errors. This position of law was reiterated in Nagendra Nath Bose vs. Commissioner of Hills Division [1958 S.C.R. 1240]. In Bhahutmal Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R. Tarta [A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1297], the Honble Supreme Court has held that the High Court could not, under the guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a Court of appeal when the Legislature has not conferred a right of appeal. Having regard to the fact and evidence Labour Court was right in ordering absorption of the 2nd Respondent. Having regard to the fact and evidence Labour Court was right in ordering absorption of the 2nd Respondent. The Labour Court has not committed any error warranting interference by this court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 124. In the result the award passed by the Labour Court ordering absorption is confirmed. In so far as the order of the Labour Court awarding 50% backwages is set aside. The writ petitioner Management is directed to absorb and appoint the 2nd Respondent within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.