JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the impugned award dated 21.10.1993 (Annexure-6) passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Kota be quashed and set-aside. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a dispute was raised on behalf of the respondent No. 2 by the Union and the same was referred to by the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Judge, Labour Court, Kota on the following point : "Whether the termination of services of Shri Panni Ram S/O. Kundan Lal Cattle Guard by the Mandal Van Adhikari was legal or not? If not so, what relief the workman is entitled for? 3. According to the respondent No.2 before the Labour Court was that his services were terminated with effect from 15.4.1988. 4. According to the petitioner, in reply to the statement of claim, it was specifically stated that proper enquiry was made on the charge of taking bribe on the tune of Rs. 25/- by the respondent No. 2 was proved. Thereafter he was terminated from the service. He was afforded full opportunity of hearing to explain and after considering his explanation, his services were terminated. 5. On behalf of the respondent, It was submitted that the respondent No.2 was removed from service by the employer only by sending a letter dated 15.4.1988 without giving an opportunity of personal hearing and without complying the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The basis of the removal of respondent No.2 from service was that he has taken bribe of Rs. 25/- from one Babu Lal and this fact has not been proved by the petitioner before the learned Labour Court and the Labour Court has not accepted that the respondent has taken Rs. 25/- as bribe. Now this Court cannot go in such type of finding of facts. 6. It is further contended that the learned Labour Court after considering the entire evidence on record and gone through the entire facts of the case, passed an award dated 21.10.1993 in which, the learned Labour Court declared that the termination order passed by the respondent was illegal. Now this Court cannot go in such type of finding of facts. 6. It is further contended that the learned Labour Court after considering the entire evidence on record and gone through the entire facts of the case, passed an award dated 21.10.1993 in which, the learned Labour Court declared that the termination order passed by the respondent was illegal. Hence, no illegality or jurisdictional error in the award of learned Labour Court and the High Court should not interfere with the award passed by the learned Labour Court under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. 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 with regard to the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court while interfering with the orders passed by the courts below. 8. Having carefully scanned the impugned order, I noticed that all the contentions raised before me were analyzed and considered in great details by the learned Labour Court. The scope of supervisory jurisdiction was explained by the Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2003(2) WLC (SC) Civil 255 : 2003(3) SCC 524 which runs in (Para-7) as under : "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 with 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 27 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." 9. 1 have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the award dated 21.10.1993 passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Kota, Rajasthan. 10. The wide jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 has to be exercised with great circumspection. 1 have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the award dated 21.10.1993 passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Kota, Rajasthan. 10. 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 a judgment of a Tribunal/Labour Court, 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 on when the finding of facts of the Court below is wholly perverse. It is also a settled law that in 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 Courts. 11. In the instant case, I do not find any jurisdictional error, perversity and illegality in the judgment passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Kota. The finding of the learned Labour Court is based on the material placed before him. There is no error apparent on the face on record. I, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the award passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court. In my view, the writ petition does not call for any interference with the award under challenge and liable to be dismissed. 12. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed by confirming the award dated 21.10.1993 passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Kota, Rajasthan with no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******