Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The petitioner by this petition has challenged the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCA) No. 44/97, whereby the Labour Court has directed for reinstatement with 25% back-wages. 2. The short facts of the case are that as per the petitioner, the respondent workman voluntarily abandoned the service since 14.10.1996. The petitioner had addressed communication calling upon the workman to join the duty but the respondent workman did not join the duty. Ultimately, the dispute was raised under the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). It is the case of the petitioner that even in the conciliation proceeding before the concerned officer, it was declared by the petitioner that services are not terminated but the respondent workman has abandoned the service and they were ready to take back the workman in service. In any event, the conciliation was not materialised and the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court at the conclusion of the aforesaid reference, passed the above referred judgment and award. Under the circumstances, the present petition before this Court. 3. I have heard Mr. Clerk, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vaishnav Vyas for the respondent. 4. The perusal of the judgment and award of passed by the Labour Court shows that the Labour Court has committed apparent error on the face of the record inasmuch as the finding recorded by the Labour Court after appreciating the evidence on record is that the workman has failed to prove that the petitioner employer had taken action for termination of service and the further finding recorded was that as per the evidence on record, pending the dispute before the Labour Court, the workman was taken back in service but thereafter, the workman has voluntarily left the work. 5. If the Labour Court had found that there was no termination of service but the workman had abandoned the work, the only consequential order would be to dismiss the reference. However, after recording the aforesaid finding, the Labour Court has directed for reinstatement with 25% back-wages. 5. If the Labour Court had found that there was no termination of service but the workman had abandoned the work, the only consequential order would be to dismiss the reference. However, after recording the aforesaid finding, the Labour Court has directed for reinstatement with 25% back-wages. In my view, once the finding was recorded to the effect that the workman has failed to prove the action of termination and that the workman had abandoned the work, the Labour Court could not have passed the order for reinstatement in service with 25% back-wages or even without 25% back-wages. It is hardly required to be stated that the operative portion in any judgment or the award has to be in conformity with the reasoning recorded and the conclusion reached. If the operative portion is running counter to the reasoning recorded or the conclusion reached, it would be a clear case of error apparent on the face of record committed by the lower court which is Labour Court in the present case and such would be a fit case to exercise the power under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution. 6. Mr. Vyas, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent attempted to submit that this Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution may undertake reappreciation of the evidence and if this Court finds that it was a case where reinstatement without 25% back-wages was to be awarded, the petition may be dismissed by this Court. 7. I am afraid such contention can be accepted while exercising the power under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution, more particularly, when the scope of judicial scrutiny would be limited to the error apparent on the face of the record or error of jurisdiction or error of not following any legal provision, but in any case, such judicial scrutiny cannot be extended for reappreciation of any evidence and to arrive at any different finding than recorded by the Labour Court. Hence, the contention cannot be accepted. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is quashed and set aside. Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.