JUDGMENT : B.R. SARANGI, J. This intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant-management assailing the order dated 30.04.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No. 14183 of 2013, whereby the learned Single Judge, while upholding the finding of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court insofar as termination of the workman is concerned, has modified the award dated 21.02.2013 in Industrial Disputes Case No.9 of 1999 by reducing the lump sum amount of compensation from Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.2,20,000/-. 2. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that respondent no.2-workman filed a statement of claim stating that he joined as Sub-Editor in the Editorial Section of the appellant management in the year 1986. Subsequently, he was assigned the duty of News Reporter in addition to his original duty. Though initially he was paid a consolidated payment of Rs.250/- per month, it was enhanced to Rs.600/- in the year 1991 and Rs.780/- per month in the year 1994. On 12.12.1989, when he submitted a representation to the appellant for his confirmation in the post of Sub-Editor or News Reporter and for payment of regular salary, the appellant kept the matter pending. Then, respondent no.2 by way of filing a complaint brought the matter to the notice of the District Labour Officer, Cuttack, who issued notice to the appellant on 25.08.1997. On receipt of the notice, the appellant prevented respondent no.2 from entering into the premises w.e.f. 07.09.1997, and the Gate Keeper of the appellant informed respondent no.2 that his services had been terminated as the same were no more required for the organization. 3. Respondent no.2 raised an Industrial Dispute, in which conciliation having been failed the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, in exercise of the power conferred upon the State Government under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication vide order dated 31.12.1998 with the following reference. “Whether the termination of services of Sri Pitamber Mishra Sub-Editor/News reporter by the management “The Samaj” with effect from 07.09.1997 is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief Sri Mishra is entitled ?” 4. “Whether the termination of services of Sri Pitamber Mishra Sub-Editor/News reporter by the management “The Samaj” with effect from 07.09.1997 is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief Sri Mishra is entitled ?” 4. The appellant in response to the notice of the Labour Court filed its written statement stating therein that there was no master and servant relationship between the appellant and respondent no.2 and, as such, respondent no.2 not being a workman, the dispute cannot be decided by the industrial forum. Further, respondent no.2 had been engaged by the appellant as a News Representative by virtue of agreements from time to time and the last agreement was dated 08.06.1995, which was valid for two years, expired on 31.03.1997. As per the contract, respondent no.2 was sending day to day important news to the appellant and getting an amount of Rs.780/- towards reimbursement of conveyance, postage, telephone and other expenses. The appellant categorically denied that it has never considered respondent no.2 as its employee and, therefore, the question of giving regularization status to respondent no.2 does not arise. 5. Considering the pleadings of both the parties, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court framed as many as two issues, as indicated below: (i) Whether the termination of service of Sri Pitamber Mishra, Sub-Editor/News Reporter by the Management “The Samaj” with effect from 07.09.1997 is legal and/or justified? (ii) If not, to what relief Sri Mishra is entitled? The Labour Court, while answering the issues, taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to a definite finding that termination of services of respondent no.2 by the appellant w.e.f 07.09.1995 was illegal and unjust. But, looking at the age of respondent no.2 at the time of adjudication, the Labour Court did not feel inclined to direct for his reinstatement in service. But, looking at the age of respondent no.2 at the time of adjudication, the Labour Court did not feel inclined to direct for his reinstatement in service. But, however, considering his past service rendered for about 11 years and the fact that the case was lingering from the year 1999 and also keeping in view the age, status and the nature of duties of respondent no.2, the Presiding Officer held that termination of services was neither legal nor justified and directed for payment of lump sum amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation to meet the ends of justice and also directed to implement the award within a period of two months from the date of its publication, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum till its realization. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellant preferred W.P(C) No.14183 of 2013 and the learned Single Judge before whom the matter appeared, as already stated hereinbefore, although did not feel inclined to interfere with the finding of the Labour Court with regard to termination of respondent no.2 as neither legal nor justified, but modified the award by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.2,20,000/- considering the period of 11 years service rendered by respondent no.2. 7. Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant, in course of hearing, placed reliance on the documents annexed as Annexure-5 series, wherein different orders and letters have been exhibited by the Labour Court as Exts. A, B, C, D, E and F. It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that those documents having not been considered by the Labour Court in proper perspective, the finding of the Labour Court vis-à-vis the learned Single Judge is vitiated and, therefore, interference of this Court is imperative. 8. Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 vehemently urged that the Labour Court, by appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available before it, having come to a definite finding that termination was bad in law, awarded for grant of a lump sum compensation, and such finding of the Labour Court having been concurred with by the learned Single Judge, interference by this Court at this stage would amount to travesty of justice. 9. Having heard Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate, appearing for respondent no.1 and Mr. 9. Having heard Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate, appearing for respondent no.1 and Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and upon perusing the records, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission. 10. On careful perusal of the materials available on record and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the documents, which have been annexed as Annexure-5 series and marked as Exts. A, B, C, D, E and F before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, have been taken into consideration in their proper perspective and, by referring to the same, the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that there was existence of master servant relationship between the appellant and respondent no.2. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, that there was no consideration of the documents, i.e., Exts. A, B, C, D, E and F, which have been filed as Annexure-5 series to the writ appeal, has no basis at all. 11. In B.K. Muniraju v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2008 SC 1438 , the apex Court held as follows: “The High Court will not covert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in re-appreciation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. Exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 or 227 cannot be tied down in a strait-jacket formula or rigid rules. Though the power is there, yet, its exercise is discretionary which will be governed solely on the dictates of judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of the judge.” 12. In Achuthananda Baidya v. Prafulla Kumar Gayen, AIR, 1997 SC 2077, the apex Court held as follows: “The High Court can interfere under this article in cases of erroneous assumption or acting beyond its jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on the face of the record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law, arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion, parent error in procedure, arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material or resulting in manifest injustice. If the evidence on record in respect of a question of fact is not at all taken into consideration and without reference to such evidence, the finding of fact is arrived at by the inferior court or tribunal, such finding will be held as perverse and lacking in factual basis. In such cases, High Court can interfere under this article to quash such perverse finding of fact.” Similar view has also been taken by the apex Court in Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar, AIR 2003 SC 38 , Mani Nariman Daruwala v. Phiroz N. Bhatena, AIR 1991 SC 1494 and Raghunath Jew v. State of Orissa, AIR 1999 SC 693 . 13. In Ouseph Mathai v. Abdul Khadir, AIR 2002 SC 110 , the apex Court held that: “Mere wrong decision is not a ground to invoke power under this article unless the wrong is referable to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power by the inferior tribunal or Court resulting in grave injustice to the party.” Similar view has also been taken by the apex Court in Koyileriam Janaki v. Rent Controller, (2009) 9 SCC 408, Chandravarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, AIR 1987 SC 117 , Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 3295 . 14. Applying the above noted principles laid down by the apex Court to the present context, it appears that, while adjudicating the matter, the Labour Court has considered all aspects, which have been raised in this appeal, and after due application of judicial mind the learned Single Judge has concurred with the finding of fact and upheld the decision of learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court so far as termination of respondent no.2 is concerned, but only reduced the lump sum amount of compensation from Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.2,20,000/-. Therefore, taking into consideration the age, status and nature of duty discharged by respondent no.2, this Court is of the considered view that the concurred finding of the facts arrived at should not interfered with by this Court lightly. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge confirming the award of learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court 15. Resultantly, the writ appeal is dismissed being bereft of merits. No order as to costs.