JUDGMENT 1. 1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that the impugned judgment dated 31.10.1998 (Annexure-2) passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur may be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the respondent No.1 before Tribunal may also be dismissed and also prayed for other appropriate order or direction to this court. 2. The petitioner has set up his case before this Court that the State Government had dissolved the management of said school and the administrator has been appointed. The Deputy Director (Secondary) Education Department, Bikaner, Zone Churu made an inspection and submitted his visit note on 22.05.2000 in which he mentioned that the management was not in a position to make payment of salary to its employees, therefore, the Director suspended the Management and the District Education Officer (Secondary) Jhunjhunu has been appointed the Administrator and at present the Management Committee is not in function. 3. It was also noted in the visit note that only 70% salary is being paid from aid amount and 30% amount which is of Management share is not being paid. As per the report a sum of Rs. 13,39,924/- is due to be paid as 30% share of the Management to its employees. The Deputy Director had recommended that the said school may be acquired in the interest of the students and the employees working in the school. 4. The respondent No.1 herein filed an application under Section 21 of Non Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 before learned Tribunal- Respondent Respondent No.2 stating therein that he was appointed as a Class IV employee on 01.01.1960 and on completing 33 years of service he was retired from service on 30.08.1994. In the application he further submitted that since September 1990 his 30%, salary was withheld and from 16.09.1993 to 30.04.1995 for 16 months his interim relief amount of Rs. 100/- per month has also been withheld. He further submitted that no reason has been given for withholding his such benefits. He also claimed payment of gratuity. 5. There was poor financial condition of the management and it seems that due to such reason the management did not contest the matter. 100/- per month has also been withheld. He further submitted that no reason has been given for withholding his such benefits. He also claimed payment of gratuity. 5. There was poor financial condition of the management and it seems that due to such reason the management did not contest the matter. The administrator of the management committee has come to know that the application filed by the respondent No. 1 which was registered vide No. 332/99 was allowed on 31.10.1998 by learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal has passed an order that the respondent No. 1 is entitled for gratuity and interest has also been awarded. Regarding his due salary it was directed to the respondent No.1 that he may take a representation to the management Committee in a period of two months. The direction for payment of gratuity has been issued to the Management Committee alone. 6. Against the said order passed by the respondent No.2, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 7. The Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 423/1997 Management M/s. Bharatpur Nutritional Products Ltd. Vs. Ishwar Chand and in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 422/1997, The Management M/s Bharatpur Nutritional Products Ltd. V/s 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 was explained by the Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company Limited (2003) (3) S.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. 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. 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 or 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 learned Tribunal. The finding of the learned Tribunal is based on the basis of material placed before him. There is no error apparent in the face on record. 1, therefore, do not find any justification to inference 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.Petition dismissed. *******