JUDGMENT 1. . - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner/appellant has preferred this intra court appeal against order dated 7th September, 2006 passed by Single Bench, whereby writ petition filed by petitioner, against award of Labour Court dated 25th June, 1997, has been dismissed. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the workman/respondent No.2 was appointed as Class IV employee on 15.5.1985 by respondent No.3 - Rajasthan University. He was transferred to petitioner University in the year 1987 and he worked upto 19th December, 1987 and his services were terminated vide order dated 21st December, 1987 in violation of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. The respondent Rajasthan University in its reply to statement of claim filed before Labour Court stated that workman was working in Bal Niketan School, which was fully financially dependent on correspondence Institution of Rajasthan University. The said correspondence Institution of Rajasthan University was transferred in Kota Open University and at the time of retrenchment of the workman, he was workman of Kota Open University, therefore, Rajasthan University is not responsible for the so called illegal act on the part of the Kota Open University. 5. The Kota Open University in its reply to statement of claim filed before Labour Court stated that workman was an employee of Rajasthan University, therefore, University of Rajasthan is responsible for any illegal act, if committed at all. 6. The Labour Court, after considering the submissions and evidence of the parties, came to a conclusion that at the time of retrenchment, the workman was an employee of Kota Open University and his services were illegally terminated. He suffered because of illegal act on the part of Kota Open University, therefore, directed the Kota Open University to pay the back wages to workman at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per year. Being aggrieved with the award, the petitioner filed writ petition, which has been dismissed by Single Bench. Hence, petitioner has preferred this special appeal. 7. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that workman was an employee of Rajasthan University, therefore, appellant is not responsible to pay the amount of back wages. The respondents defended the award passed by the Labour Court as well as the order passed by Single Bench and submitted that there is no merit in the appeal, therefore, the same may be dismissed. 8. The respondents defended the award passed by the Labour Court as well as the order passed by Single Bench and submitted that there is no merit in the appeal, therefore, the same may be dismissed. 8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order passed by Single Bench as well as award passed by Labour Court. 9. The workman was initially appointed on 15.5.1985 in Bal Niketan School, which was affiliated as Correspondence Institution of Rajasthan University. The entire correspondence Institutions of Rajasthan University were transferred to Kota Open University vide order dated 22nd August, 1987 (Ex.3) passed by State Government. Therefore, it is clear that at the time of retrenchment of the workman i.e. on 21.12.1987, the workman was an employee of Kota Open University. The said question is a question of fact. The Labour Court has also recorded the same finding. The dispute is only in respect of Rs. 10,000/- relating to back wages awarded for ten years for the period from the date of termination till the date of award (1987 to 1997) at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per year, awarded by the Labour Court. Both the Universities are disputing their liability in respect of a meagre amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards back wages for ten years to the workman. 10. The question involved in the present case as to whether the workman was an employee of Kota Open University or Rajasthan University is purely a question of fact. The Labour Court recorded a finding that Kota Open University is liable to pay the amount of back wages. This being a question of fact could not have been interferred with by Single Bench and has rightly been not interfered with, while dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. We find no merit in submission of learned counsel for appellant. The Single Bench was absolutely right in not interfering with the award passed by the Labour Court. 11. In view of above discussion, we find no merit in this special appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******