ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. Petitioner, State of Rajasthan, by the instant writ petition, has assailed impugned judgment and award dated 23rd of February 2005, passed by Labour Court, Bhilwara. 2. The learned Labour Court, by the impugned award, answered reference in favour of respondent-workman by declaring termination of his services illegal and void being violative of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'Act of 1947'). The learned Labour Court has further ordered reinstatement of the respondent-workman in the services of the petitioner and awarded him 50% back wages w.e.f. 27th of June 2001 until date of reinstatement. 3. The facts apposite for the purpose of this writ petition are that respondent-workman was employed in the office of petitioner w.e.f. 14th of March 1992 and continued upto 15th of June 2000 but on 16th of June 2000 his services are discontinued. Feeling aggrieved by the action of petitioner, respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute by resorting to Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Act of 1947. Precisely, respondent-workman questioned dispensation of his services on the anvil of being violative of Section 25-F & 25-G of the Act of 1947. The Conciliation Officer made efforts to settle the dispute between rival parties but when his efforts proved abortive, a Failure Report is forwarded in the matter to the appropriate Government under sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Act of 1947. Taking cognizance of the failure report, the appropriate Govt. found that there existed an industrial dispute between the rival parties and consequently by its notification No.1360/2001 dated 9th of August 2002 referred following dispute for adjudication to Labour Court, Bhilwara. ^^D;k Jfed Jh ckyw iq= Jh Hkksyk th njksxk ¼ftldk izfrfuf/kRo ea=h] ih0MCY;w0Mh0 deZpkjh la?k 11@97 & Hkwikyxat] HkhyokM+k }kjk fd;k x;k gS½ dks fu;kstd i{k vf/k'kk'kh vfHk;Urk lkoZtfud fuekZ.k foHkkx [k.M r`rh; HkhyokM+k }kjk fnuakd 16-06-2000 ls lsok&i`Fkd djuk mfpr ,ao oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl jkgr dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\** 4. Before the learned Labour Court, respondent-workman submitted his statement of claim wherein he has taken shelter of both the aforesaid grounds and prayed for declaring his termination invalid with consequential relief of reinstatement in service and back wages. 5. On behalf of petitioner, reply to the statement of claim is submitted incorporating many objections. Before the learned Labour Court, respondent-workman submitted his statement of claim wherein he has taken shelter of both the aforesaid grounds and prayed for declaring his termination invalid with consequential relief of reinstatement in service and back wages. 5. On behalf of petitioner, reply to the statement of claim is submitted incorporating many objections. The rival parties led their evidence and finally learned Labour Court by the impugned judgment and award found the termination of the petitioner illegal and void so as to grant him aforementioned relief. 6. At the threshold, when the petition came up for admission before the Court on 4th of August 2006, the Court was pleased to admit the petition but declined the prayer of interim relief with the observation that respondent-workman has already been taken on duty. Therefore, indisputably, before admission of the petition, respondent-workman was reinstated in services by the petitioner. During the course of hearing, it is also brought to my notice by learned counsel for the rival parties that in compliance of impugned award respondent-workman has been paid 50% back wages in the year 2008. Thus, in totality, the petitioner has complied with the entire award passed by learned Labour Court. Be that as it may, the fact remains that petition has been admitted and therefore the rival parties are permitted to advance their arguments. 7. Learned counsel for the State has argued that respondent-workman was engaged purely on temporary basis and there was no sanctioned post, therefore, impugned award is per se contrary to law and cannot be sustained. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that learned Labour Court has committed manifest error of law and fact in recording the finding that retrenchment of the petitioner is violative of Section 25-F & 25-G of the Act of 1947. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-workman has strenuously urged that learned Labour Court has examined the matter threadbare for arriving at its conclusion that retrenchment of the workman is in clear negation of mandatory provisions contained under Section 25-F & 25-G of the Act of 1947. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that a finding of fact arrived at by the learned Labour Court upon appreciation of evidence is not liable to be tinkered with in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that a finding of fact arrived at by the learned Labour Court upon appreciation of evidence is not liable to be tinkered with in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that in view of compliance of the impugned award in its entirety and the fact that respondent is working with the petitioner after his reinstatement for last more than a decade, it is not desirable to upset the impugned award. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar. 10. Upon perusal of the impugned award, it is abundantly clear that learned Labour Court has made sincere endeavour to thrash out the matter for answering the reference in favour of respondent-workman. While examining the objection of the petitioner that respondent-workman has not worked for 240 days in a calendar year, the learned Labour Court has recorded its finding that petitioner-employer has failed to substantiate its plea by not producing/withholding certain material documents. In this view of the matter, if the learned Labour Court upon appreciation of evidence has recorded a definite finding favouring the cause of respondent-workman, then the said finding is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 11. There remains no quarrel that interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is desirable only in cases of grave miscarriage of justice, dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law by subordinate courts. Moreover, supervisory jurisdiction is required to be exercised very sparingly and it cannot be treated akin to appellate or revisional power. Therefore, in totality, I feel dissuaded to interfere in the matter. 12. At this stage, it is also just and appropriate to take note of certain subsequent events having direct ramification on the lis involved in the matter. Indisputably, in compliance of the impugned award petitioner-employer has reinstated respondent-workman in services before admission of the writ petition and the respondent-workman is in employment since 2006. That apart, the petitioner-employer has also paid 50% back wages awarded by learned Labour Court to the respondent-workman. Thus, after lapse of more than a decade a very vital fact that the award itself has been fully complied with by the petitioner-employer, is significant to dissuade this Court so as to upset the impugned award. That apart, the petitioner-employer has also paid 50% back wages awarded by learned Labour Court to the respondent-workman. Thus, after lapse of more than a decade a very vital fact that the award itself has been fully complied with by the petitioner-employer, is significant to dissuade this Court so as to upset the impugned award. As the respondent-workman is in employment of the petitioner since last almost 11 years, in my considered opinion, interference with the impugned order may result in grave injustice/miscarriage of justice. Resultantly, the petition fails and same is hereby dismissed.