JUDGMENT Mr. K.M. Thaker, J. Heard Mr.Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:- “6(B) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the judgment and award passed by Hon’ble Labour Court, Vadodara, Court No.1, dated 22.09.2009 passed in Reference (LCV) No.703 of 1992 by which reference of the petitioner has been rejected; and be pleased to hold that the judgment and award passed by Hon’ble Labour Cour, Vadodara is not just and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case;” 3. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the award dated 22.09.2009, passed by Learned Labour Court in Reference (LCV) No.703 of 1992, whereby the learned Labour Court rejected the reference preferred by the petitioner. 4. While rejecting the reference, learned Labour Court has recorded finding of fact that the petitioner failed to establish that she had worked for not less than 240 day with the respondent, and that therefore, the claim of reinstatement with consequential benefits made by the petitioner was not maintainable and did not deserve to be granted. 5. Having reached to the said conclusion, the learned Labour Court rejected the reference. 6. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said award. 7. The petitioner herein raised industrial dispute on the allegation that she was serving as Sweeper in the respondent no.2 School and that she had joined the service with effect from 21.08.1991 and that her service was illegally and arbitrary termination by oral order with effect from 28.05.1992. She also alleged that before termination, she was not paid any notice pay and any notice was also not given and any compensation was also not paid. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondent of allegedly terminating her service, she had issued notice dated 18.07.1992 seeking reinstatement, however, said demand was not accepted by the respondent-School, and therefore, she raised industrial dispute. 9. In the reference, present petitioner prayed for written statement with continuity of service. The petitioner claimed that she was working in the school, which, according to petitioners allegation was, administered by respondent no.3. 10. So far as factual background is concerned, it is noticed from the record that in the statement of claim filed by the petitioner, the petitioner herself claimed that she was engaged by a Contractor on daily wage basis, she was paid salary of Rs. 10. So far as factual background is concerned, it is noticed from the record that in the statement of claim filed by the petitioner, the petitioner herself claimed that she was engaged by a Contractor on daily wage basis, she was paid salary of Rs. 31.60. 11. She also claimed in her statement of claim that she was working in the School named Vidhya Vihar School i.e. respondent no.2 in the petition and was working as Sweeper. She also alleged in the statement of claim that she had joined the service with the contractor with effect from 21.08.1991. 12. From the award, it appears that the petition had raised industrial dispute against the respondent no.1 i.e. Contractor. 13. It is also noticed from the record that when the dispute was raised, it was not raised against the respondent no.2 or respondent no.3. (who is deleted after Courts order dated 31.03.2011). 14. It appears that the respondent no.2 School was subsequently impleaded as party to the proceedings. 15. However, the cause title of the award passed by the Learned Labour Court does not reflect name of either School or respondent no.3, as party to the proceedings. 16. During the proceedings before the Learned Labour Court, oral evidence of the petitioner was recorded. 17. The opponent i.e. present respondent no.1- Contractor had not entered appearance before the Learned Labour Court. 18. Therefore, the Learned Labour Court closed the stage of reply so far opponent Contractor is concerned. 19. Learned Labour Court also closed the stage of cross-examination of the petitioner, by the Opponent Contractor i.e. present respondent no.1 is concerned. 20. From the award impugned in present petition, it also appears that any reply was not filed and any evidence was not led by the Opponent Contractor i.e. present respondent no.1. 21. Thereafter, Learned Labour Court took into consideration the evidence and material on record. 22. Learned Labour Court also took into consideration the fact that which emerged from the evidence by the petitioner that (a) the petitioner had worked for only 9 months i.e. 28.08.1991 to 28.05.1992, and (b) that the School remained closed on every sunday and also on any public holiday and during the vacation at the time of Diwali and Summer (i.e. April / May). 23. 23. Having considered the evidence led by the petitioner, the Learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to establish, even prima-facie, that she had worked with the respondent School for not less than 240 days. 24. Actually, even according to the petitioner, she was engaged by the Contractor. 25. Considering all these aspects, Learned Labour Court rejected the reference. 26. The findings and conclusions and the reasons in support of the findings on the strength of which, Learned Labour Court has passed the award, are findings of fact which are recorded by the Learned Labour Court on the basis of and in light of the material available on record. 27. The petitioner had admitted before the Learned Labour Court that she had worked only for 9 months and that she was engaged by the Contractor and that school used to remain closed during public holidays, Summer and Diwali Vacations and on every Sunday. 28. In light of the said evidence, the Learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that during the period of 9 months of her service with the contractor, she had not worked for 240 days, and therefore, the Learned Labour Court rejected the said reference. 29. The learned Labour Court has not committed any error. The award and findings of fact recorded by the Learned Labour Court do not suffer from any error or infirmity and do not warrant any interference. 30. Having regard to below quoted observations by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd Mustaqim, reported in AIR 1984 SC 38 . This Court would not interfere with the decision and findings of fact recorded on the basis of evidence on record and said findings are not perverse and the Court has not committed any error of law or jurisdiction. In the said decision Hon’ble Apex Court observed that:- “ The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts udder 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. 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 inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision.” 31. When it was not in dispute that the petitioner had worked for only 9 months which period included vacation and public holidays and when the petitioner had admitted that she was engaged by and she was employee of a Contractor, there is no infirmity in the decision to reject the reference. 32. The petition fails and deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. Rule is discharged.