JUDGMENT : G.S. Sandhawalia, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 29.11.2013 (Annexure P/3) whereby the Labour Court, has declined the reference of the workman by holding that there is no relationship of employer and employee inter se the parties and the workman was an employee of the contractor. A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that the claim of the workman as per demand notice u/s 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was that he was appointed by the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") in Market Commit tee, Kaithal on 25.5.2009. He worked upto 8.10.2010, without any break. His services were terminated by the Board on 9.10.2010 without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Act in spite of the fact he had completed 240 days of service preceding his termination. Junior employees had been retained and accordingly, an industrial dispute was raised. The respondents in their reply specifically took the plea that the Chief Administrator of the Board had contracted a private agency and contract for the same purpose was given to M/s. Nav Bharat Security Service, Karnal vide memo dated 16.4.2009 and since 25.5.2009 to August, 2009 services of the workman were provided by the said contractor. Thereafter, new contract was given on 29.6.2009 and the workman remained under the supervision of M/s. Narwal Super Security, Panipat and thus he was never an employee of the Board and there was no direct link with the Board and payment was made to the contractor and there was no relationship of employer and employee. 2. In spite of the specific defence taken in the reply, the workman chose not to implead the contractor and in the claim petition sought reinstatement against the Board. Therefore, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was no relationship of employer and employee and had declined the reference. 3. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the appointment was made by the Chief Administrator of the Board and the Labour Court was not justified in declining the reference. 4. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that there is no substance in the said submission. 3. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the appointment was made by the Chief Administrator of the Board and the Labour Court was not justified in declining the reference. 4. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that there is no substance in the said submission. Nothing has been brought on record to show that any appointment letter has been issued by the Chief Administrator of the Board whereby the petitioner-workman was appointed as driver. Categorical defence has been taken by the Board and the petitioner did not examine any body from the contractors' establishment to show that his appointment was directly with the Board and not with the Contractor. A factual finding of fact has thus been recorded by the Labour Court that there is no material on record to show the relationship of employer and employee inter se the parties in a nature of an appointment letter. One cannot loose sight of the fact that the Board being a statutory authority would have issued a letter of appointment which is absent in the present case. 5. It has time and again been held by the Apex Court that while exercising the powers of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is to exercise its power only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice has taken place. The High Court will not convert itself into a Court of appeal and indulge, appreciate or evaluate evidence and correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. The said principle was laid down in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, wherein it has been held that where the Tribunal has acted illegally in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it and decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to the principles of natural justice, this Court would interfere. The error of law has to be apparent on the face of the record and it has to be manifestly clear that the conclusion of law recorded by the Tribunal is on an obvious misinterpretation of the relevant statutory provisions or in ignorance of the same. Thus, what can be corrected is an error of law, which should be of such a character which is apparent on the face of the record and if the statutory provision is capable of two constructions and one of it had been adopted by the Tribunal, it may not be desirable to correct the same by way of writ of certiorari. In the present case, no such error of law or fact has been shown which would warrant interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no scope for interference in the well reasoned award of Labour Court and the writ petition is dismissed in limine.