JUDGMENT : Sonia Gokani, J. The challenge is made by the petitioner-Firm to the award of the Labour Court where it granted the 25% back wages with all other consequential benefits in favour of the original workman, who was working as driver with the petitioner-Firm. The petitioner is a partnership firm and is engaged in the activity of leasing out premises for industrial, marriage and other purposes. Petitioner No.2 is one of the partners of the partnership-firm and it is her case that original workmen was a personal driver of Petitioners and was in no manner connected with the office work of the petitioner-Firm. The workmen was working only 2 to 4 hours a day to take the parents and family members of petitioner to different places and also to the temple. The original workman was allotted a quarter in R.C. Patel and Co., where no rent was collected of the said quarter. Since, the heirs of the original workman denied to vacate the premises on demise of original workman, a Suit was also filed before the Small Causes Court. There is no dispute taken by the petitioner-firm that the original workman served for a long period of service and when he attained the age of superannuation and was unable to drive at night hours, the petitioners chose not to risk the lives of the family members, and therefore, he was requested to consult an ophthalmologist and get a fitness certificate. However, same was not furnished by the original workman and he attained the age of superannuation on 15.02.1985. 2. It is the say of the petitioners that to their shocking surprise, a Demand Notice was received from the Union of which the original workman was a member, wherein he had asked for his dues and also for his termination without following the procedure. 3. Reply to the same was also given by the petitioner and the original workman approached the Labour Court with a reference being Reference (LCV) No. 417/1985, as the conciliation failed. 4. The Court after availing opportunity to both the sides had granted the reliefs stated herein above, which are in challenge before this Court with the following prayers: “6. ... Reply to the same was also given by the petitioner and the original workman approached the Labour Court with a reference being Reference (LCV) No. 417/1985, as the conciliation failed. 4. The Court after availing opportunity to both the sides had granted the reliefs stated herein above, which are in challenge before this Court with the following prayers: “6. ... (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing or setting aside impugned ex-parte award dated 4.12.2006 passed in Reference (LCV) No. 417 of 1985. (B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay operation, execution and implementation of the impugned ex-parte award dated 4.12.2006 passed in Reference (LCV) No. 417 of 1985; (C) An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of para 6 (B) above be granted; (D) ...” 5. It is the say of the petitioner that at one time during the cross-examination it was stated that the petitioner-Firm had been closed down and therefore the right of the petitioner firm was closed down and the same had been challenged before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 8268 of 2005 and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court. Thereafter, on 27.07.2005 original workman passed away pending Reference before the Labour Court. His son therefore moved an application to implead himself as a party-applicant on 03.03.2006, and thereafter, the matter proceeded and eventually the impugned award came to be passed on 04.12.2006. 6. The learned Advocate, Mr. Joshi, appearing for Trivedi & Gupta urges that during the entire proceedings, the original workmen did not state that he had attained the age of superannuation and it is only after getting the certificate from the Municipal Corporation that he was at the time of his death, was aged about 79 years. He also urged that a wrong industrial dispute has been raised. The original workman was not the driver of the firm but was privately engaged by petitioners. On considering the extraneous circumstances, the Labour Court granted the benefits to the original workman. He was unable to even see, and therefore, was incapacitated as a driver. 7. Learned Advocate, Mr. He also urged that a wrong industrial dispute has been raised. The original workman was not the driver of the firm but was privately engaged by petitioners. On considering the extraneous circumstances, the Labour Court granted the benefits to the original workman. He was unable to even see, and therefore, was incapacitated as a driver. 7. Learned Advocate, Mr. Murli Devnani, appearing for the original workman has argued for and on behalf of his heirs that on the strength of the material on record, the Labour Court has decided in favour of the original workman and therefore this Court may not interfere in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. He further has urged that there is no jurisdictional error nor any error apparent on the face of the record nor the award is illegal or ex-facie and therefore also this Court may not warrant any indulgence. It is further his say that for 26 years, the original workman discharged his duties with the petitioner-Firm and that he was 62 years of age in the year 1985. Further, according to him, there being less than 4 to 5 employees in the petitioner-Firm, standing orders shall not be applicable. 8. This Court heard both the sides and also examined thoroughly the award of the Labour Court. Primarily on the ground that at the time of retirement no notice, notice pay nor any procedure was followed, the Labour Court concluded in favour of the original workman. 9. It can be noticed that the original workman passed away on 23.07.2005, and therefore, there was no question of any reinstatement. His heirs have replaced him as party-petitioner. It is not in dispute that neither before the Labour Court nor before this Court even a contention is raised that at the time of terminating his services, the original workman had been issued any notice or he was paid any notice pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation or any other benefits were made available to him. 10. The petitioner is a partnership Firm, where the Respondent had served as driver for long years. It is the firm engaged in the business of leasing out premises for industrial, marriage etc. purposes. As per the Demand Notice issued by the original workman, his last pay was Rs. 350/- per month. 10. The petitioner is a partnership Firm, where the Respondent had served as driver for long years. It is the firm engaged in the business of leasing out premises for industrial, marriage etc. purposes. As per the Demand Notice issued by the original workman, his last pay was Rs. 350/- per month. The original workman was also being paid dearness allowance so also the benefits of the leaves and other service benefits. The demand after his termination on 14.03.1985 was replied to. The reply to the notice also had been given by the original workman and he had claimed his fitness as well as his being below the age of superannuation at the time of his superannuation. It is also disputed seriously that the Firm had closed down its business on 31.03.1985. 11. Neither on facts nor on the law this Court finds any legality in the findings and the reasonings so also the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court. It appears that after the Demand Notice sent by the original workman for the first time, the petitioner firm had come out with the ground that the original workman used to work only 2 to 4 hours a day and that too for the benefits of only family members claiming that he was in the private service. At the time of cross examination also on the ground of the petitioner-Firm having been closed, no cross-examination was done and later on by virtue of the order of this Court, the right was opened. No evidence to that effect had been led which proved that the original workman was engaged privately and he had no connection with the Firm, as such. By rightly appreciating the oral as well as the documentary evidences, the Labour Court has passed the impugned award. No interference, in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, is desirable. 12. Resultantly, this petition fails and is Dismissed. 13. Petitioner-Firm is directed to pay as per the award of the Labour Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In default, the amount will fetch interest from the date of award at the rate of eight per cent.