JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner employer has challenged the award Annex.7 dated 13.10.1997 passed by respondent No. 1. Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short the tribunal' hereinafter) whereby the tribunal adjudicated the reference made to it by the Govt. of Rajasthan vide notification dated 13.10.1993 and held that appointing the respondent workman on the post of Helper in place of Plumber is illegal and it was further held that the respondent workman be treated to have been appointed on the post of Plumber. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent workman does not possess the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Plumber. Initially the respondent workman was appointed on the post of Helper on daily rated basis, his services came to be terminated on 1.1.1984. The respondent No.2 raised an industrial dispute and on a reference having been made by the State Govt. to the tribunal, the tribunal by award dated 19.12.1987 held that the termination of the services of the respondent workman by the petitioner employer from the post of Plumber is illegal and therefore, the petitioner employer was directed to reinstate the respondent workman on the post of Plumber with continuity of service w.e.f. 1. 1.1984 with 50% back wages and thereafter the petitioner reinstated the respondent workman in compliance of the earlier award dated 19.12.1987 on the post of Plumber. However, subsequent thereto, the case of the respondent was examined by the Screening Committee of the petitioner employer and the Screening Committee decided to keep the respondent workman on the post of Helper to which he was found suitable and possessing requisite qualification but held that the respondent is lacking the requisite qualification for the post of Plumber and therefore, directed to place the respondent on the post of Helper instead of Plumber on which he was reinstated and has been working right from his initial engagement . According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the qualification for the post of Plumber and the experience are that the candidate must possess ITI certificate in the trade of plumbing with at least two years experience in the trade. however, there is no bar in the case of persons already employed in the corporation from last 3 years. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the qualification for the post of Plumber and the experience are that the candidate must possess ITI certificate in the trade of plumbing with at least two years experience in the trade. however, there is no bar in the case of persons already employed in the corporation from last 3 years. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent workman supported the award impugned and contended that even in earlier reference made to the respondent Industrial Tribunal which came to he adjudicated by award dated 19.12.1987 Annex.R/2/2, no such plea was raised by the petitioner employer that the respondent workman does not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Plumber and therefore, now such plea by way of writ petition is barred by principles of res judicata . Learned counsel appearing for the respondent workman further submits that since inception i.e. w.e.f. 22.2.1983, the respondent workman was engaged as Plumber and continues to work on the post of Plumber till his termination by order dated 01.01. 1984 against which, the industrial dispute was raised by the respondent workman and the Govt. of Rajasthan referred the industrial dispute to the Labour Court and the Labour Court vide award dated 19.12.1987 answered the reference in favour of the respondent workman holding that the termination of the services of the respondent workman on the post of Plumber was illegal and therefore, directed to reinstate the respondent workman with effect from 1.1.1984 on the post of Plumber and to pay 50% back wages and that award has attained the finality and has not been challenged by the petitioner employer. According to learned counsel for the respondent workman. Even before the Labour Court various documents have been placed on record by the respondent workman showing himself to be qualified and eligible for the post of Plumber. According to the respondent workman, as per the rules when he was initially engaged, the respondent possessed the requisite qualification to hold the post of Plumber as the respondent holds the certificate of ITI as also has a long experience with the petitioner employer and therefore, the award impugned calls for no interference. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. From the perusal of the award impugned Annex. 7 as also the earlier award Annex. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. From the perusal of the award impugned Annex. 7 as also the earlier award Annex. R/2/2 dated 19.12.1987, it is clear that initially the respondent workman was engaged on the post of Plumber w.e.f. 22.2.1983 and he continued on the said post though his services came to be terminated by the petitioner employer w.e.f. 1.1.1984. However, on an industrial dispute being raised by the respondent workman and reference having been made by the State Govt. to the tribunal, the tribunal answered the reference in favour of the respondent workman as noticed above and thereafter also on reinstatement the workman has been continuously working on the post of Plumber. It has also been established from the material available on record before the tribunal that the respondent workman possessed the ITI certificate and requisite experience. It may be a different thing that the respondent workman possessed the ITI certificate in the trade Turner and post of Turner and Plumber as has been concluded by the tribunal is almost having a similar nature of work. Be that as it may, by a long experience, the respondent workman possessed all requisite qualification to hold the post of Plumber. The tribunal has recorded finding of fact on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties before it as also on sound and proper appreciation of the evidence and therefore, the finding of fact arrived at by the tribunal, in my view, calls for no interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is settled law that the scope of interference under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqum and Others, AIR 1984 SC 38 wherein it has been held that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority" and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record much less an error of law. In this case, there was in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the determination of the interior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision. 7. Keeping in view, the settled proposition of law and the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my view , the tribunal was justified in passing the award impugned. At any rate, the award impugned cannot be said to be faulted with in any manner warranting interference in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 8. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and it is therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******