ORDER : Javed Iqbal Wani, J. In the instant petition challenge is thrown to the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court, J&K Srinagar (for brevity ‘Tribunal’) dated 13.06.2016 (for brevity ‘impugned award’) passed in case titled as Fayaz Ahmad and others vs. Management of Indian Tourism Development Corporation. Brief Facts of the case:- 2. Respondents herein got appointed by the petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioner-Corporation’), in the 12.031985, 02.09.1972, 04.09.1981, 24.07.1987 and 26.06.1973 as Sweeper, Usher, Chowkidar and Security Guard respectively. The said appointments of the respondents herein in the petitioner-Corporation had been made after subjecting the respondents to a process of interview. In all the respective appointment orders of the respondents herein inter alia a specific condition is incorporated that they shall be liable to transfer and post to any of the Unit of the petitioner-Corporation within India and aboard. 3. The respondents herein were retrenched by the petitioner-Corporation under Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘Act of 1947’) on 16.09.2002 and 01.11.2002 respectively, on the ground of closing of the establishment, they have been working in i.e., the Sound and Light Show, SEL Shalimar and Gulmarg SKI Project. The respondents herein upon being retrenched raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the Act of 1947, before the Conciliation Officer (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kashmir, Division. The Conciliation Officer tried to bring the parties to an amicable settlement, however, the same failed and consequently, the Conciliation Officer submitted a report to the State Government under Section 12 (4) of the Act of 1947, which resulted into making of a reference by the Government under SRO 244 dated 26.07.2004 to the Tribunal. Following has been the reference made:- “a) Whether the closure of Sound and Light Show Shalimar is illegal in the eyes of law? b) Whether the termination of employees and their re-engagement on the contractual basis in the same concern is illegal? c) If so, whether the retrenched workmen are entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits? 4. The Tribunal after entering upon the reference passed the impugned award, whereby the retrenched workmen/respondents herein were held entitled to reinstatement with full back wages on revision basis with other consequential benefits along with 9% interest on full back wages. The impugned award has been subsequently published/ notified in the Govt. 4. The Tribunal after entering upon the reference passed the impugned award, whereby the retrenched workmen/respondents herein were held entitled to reinstatement with full back wages on revision basis with other consequential benefits along with 9% interest on full back wages. The impugned award has been subsequently published/ notified in the Govt. Gazette in compliance to the directions of the Tribunal. 5. The impugned award is being questioned inter alia on the following grounds:- (a) That the findings recorded by the Tribunal are not correct, in that, the respondents herein had accepted the retrenchment upon service of notice for closure under Section 25-FFF and retrenchment amount under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, having accepted the retrenchment amount, the notice amount, gratuity and other terminal dues voluntarily and without any protest, as such, the respondents herein were not entitled to challenge the order of retrenchment on the ground that the notice amount and retrenchment compensation was paid after a lapse of four months; (b) That the Tribunal held respondents herein entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits and that such payment of full back wages could not be automatic or natural consequence of reinstatement and that for entitlement of a person to back wages, an employee has to show that he was not gainfully employed; (c) That the respondents had neither pleaded nor placed any material on record to suggest that they were not gainfully employed and that the Tribunal without appreciating and assigning any reason held the respondents herein entitle to the full back wages with other consequential benefits and that the Tribunal had no power to award interest on full back wages; (d) That the respondents 1, 3 and 5 had attained superannuation on 31.07.2011, 28.02.2011 and 30.11.2009 and despite that the Tribunal directed their reinstatement which was not legally permissible and that the finding recorded in the impugned award holding the respondents herein as the employees of the petitioner-Corporation with respects is contrary to the record and not correct; (e) That the discrimination alleged by the respondents herein before the Tribunal viz-a-viz 08 other employees working in the Corporation had been without any force and deserve to be rejected, but the Tribunal arrived at a finding overlooking the material on record and did not appreciated the evidence in its true and correct perspective and without there being any evidence. 6. 6. Per contra, respondents herein have filed objections to the petition, wherein dismissal of the petition is sought inter alia on the principle that petition is grossly misconceived and does not disclose any of the ground on which a writ of certiorari can be issued. It is being further stated in the objections that the Tribunal was vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute referred to it by the competent authority and award passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law and that the impugned award has been passed after following the procedure and application of mind to the relevant factors based on sufficient evidence to support the findings returned by the Tribunal. It is being further stated in the objections that the impugned award has been published in the Govt. Gazette and that the petitioner-Corporation has chosen to challenge the award alone and not the Gazette notification, thus, rendering the petition liable to be dismissed. It is next stated in the objections that the petitioner-Corporation in the petition has raised pleas which require appreciation of evidence led by the parties and that this Court will not re-appreciate the said evidence in the petition, as such, petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred in the objections that the respondents herein had been engaged on temporary basis in two Units of the petitioner-Corporation in Kashmir and the said two Units were closed by the petitioner-Corporation and closure of said Units could not have been made the basis for retrenchment of the respondents wherein, in that, they were the employees of the petitioner-Corporation and that scope of their postings was not restricted to its two Units operating in Kashmir, but the respondents herein and other employees could be transferred and posted outside the said Units as had been done viz-a-viz other employees of the petitioner-Corporation who were working with the respondents in the said Corporation and instead of transferring the respondents herein to other Units, the Corporation decided to retrench the respondents herein while singling them out. It is being further averred in the objections that the Tribunal while passing the impugned award rightly observed that the retrenchment of the respondents herein by the petitioner –Corporation on the ground of closure of Units was ruse and mere pretense, so much so the procedure particularly qua payment of compensation had not been strictly followed. It is being further averred in the objections that the Tribunal while passing the impugned award rightly observed that the retrenchment of the respondents herein by the petitioner –Corporation on the ground of closure of Units was ruse and mere pretense, so much so the procedure particularly qua payment of compensation had not been strictly followed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Before reverting to the submissions of the appearing counsel for the parties, it is pertinent to mention here that it is settled position of law that this Court while exercising extra writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in deciding the validity or otherwise of an award passed by a Labour Court or a Tribunal does not sit as a Court of appeal on facts, in that, it is the Labour Court or the Tribunal which is the final Court of facts. However if a finding of fact is perverse or if the same is not based on legal evidence, the exercise of jurisdiction either under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution may be exercisable and this Court can go into the question of facts decided by a Labour Court or a Tribunal, but while exercising the said jurisdiction the Writ Court must record the reasons why it intends to reconsider the findings of fact. In absence of any such defect in the order of a Labour Court or a Tribunal the Writ Court will not enter upon a realm of factual disputes and finding given thereon. 8. Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal position, the grounds urged by the petitioner-Corporation in the instant petition against the impugned award may be adverted to. 9. Insofar as, ground (a) is concerned, it is urged that the Tribunal has held the retrenchment of the respondents as illegal, violative of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 on the basis of judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court in case titled as Sita Ram Pareek vs. Judge Labour Court and another, reported in 2007(1) LLJ 264 , which is distinguishable. The ground urged to the aforesaid extent however, seemingly is devoid of any merit having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as such, is rejected. The ground urged to the aforesaid extent however, seemingly is devoid of any merit having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as such, is rejected. It is also being urged in the ground that the respondents herein after being served a notice for closure under Section 25 –FFF and retrenchment under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, they accepted the retrenchment amount, notice amount etc. without any protest and, as such, could not, challenge the order of retrenchment on the ground that the notice amount/compensation was paid after a lapse of four months. However, perusal of the record in general and the reply filed by the petitioner herein before the Tribunal in particular tends to show that no such plea or ground had been raised or urged before the Tribunal by the petitioner-Corporation therefore, the petitioner-Corporation cannot now raise such a plea before this Court, as such, the ground urged is held legally not sustainable. 10. Insofar as, ground (b) is concerned, petitioner-Corporation has urged that the Tribunal has held the respondents herein entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits mechanically without there being any plea or material placed on record by the respondents herein before the Tribunal that they were not gainfully employed and did not as such, discharge the initial burden. It is urged that the Tribunal without any power awarded 9% interest on the full back wages to the respondents herein. Perusal of the claim petition filed by the respondents herein before the Tribunal indisputably, tends to show that the respondents herein had in explicit terms pleaded in their petition that after retrenchment, they were re-employed by the petitioner-Corporation on contractual basis at Gulmarg and Shalimar, Kashmir on consolidated salary of Rs. 4500/- per month. Thus, rightly had not averred anywhere in the claim petition that they were not gainfully employed. The law on the question of back wages is no more res intergra and the Apex Court in case titled J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K. P. Agarwal and another, reported in 2007(2) SCC 433 in para 18 has in this regard held as follows:- “Coming back to back-wages, even if the court finds it necessary to award back-wages, the question will be whether back-wages should be awarded fully or only partially (and if so the percentage). That depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. That depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Any income received by the employee during the relevant period on account of alternative employment or business is a relevant factor to be taken note of while awarding back- wages, in addition to the several factors mentioned in Rudhan Singh (supra) and Udai Narain Pandey (supra). Therefore, it is necessary for the employee to plead that he was not gainfully employed from the date of his termination. While an employee cannot be asked to prove the negative, he has to at least assert on oath that he was neither employed nor engaged in any gainful business or venture and that he did not have any income. Then the burden will shift to the employer. But there is, however, no obligation on the terminated employee to search for or secure alternative employment. Be that as it may” In view of clear cut admission by the respondents herein that after retrenchment they were reemployed by the petitioner-Corporation, there was no reason or occasion for the Tribunal to have awarded full back wages along with other consequential benefits to the respondents herein while directing their reinstatement. The grant of full back wages prima facie runs contrary to the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment (supra). The impugned award to this extent is legally not sustainable. 11. Insofar as, ground (c) urged in the petition is concerned, wherein petitioner-Corporation has urged that respondents 1, 3 and 5 had attained superannuation during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal and, as such, it was not permissible for the Tribunal to have directed reinstatement of the said respondents, but instead ought to have awarded just and fair compensation to them. It is also settled law that when termination is found in contravention of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, reinstatement is not the rule, but an exception and ordinarily grant of compensation would meet ends of justice, as has been held by the Apex Court in case titled as Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical Education Sanstha, Nagpur vs. Prashant Manikrao Kubitkar, reported in 2018 (12) SCC 294 . This position of superannuation of the respondents 1, 3 and 5 is not controverted by the respondents herein. The impugned award, as such, to this extent is as well not sustainable in law. 12. This position of superannuation of the respondents 1, 3 and 5 is not controverted by the respondents herein. The impugned award, as such, to this extent is as well not sustainable in law. 12. Insofar as, ground (d) is concerned, wherein it is urged by the petitioner -Corporation that the respondents herein were not employees of the petitioner-Corporation and finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard is contrary to record and not correct, it gets revealed that the ground is factually incorrect, in that, as per the record, the respondents herein have been engaged and working with the petitioner-Corporation and were liable to be transferred and posted to any of the Units of the Corporation. Finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard is upheld, as such, needs no interference. 13. Insofar as, ground (e) is concerned, contents of the same are non-specific in nature without identifying a specific instance of error or perversity alleged to have committed by the Tribunal in the award, while adjudicating upon the matter. The ground urged thus, is not legally tenable. 14. The Tribunal seemingly has considered the matter in its right perspective in line and tune with the reference made by the competent authority, except directing re-instatement of the retired workmen and the awarding of full back wages to the respondents herein with interest. 15. Having regard to what has been observed, considered and analyzed hereinabove, the instant petition shall stand disposed of as follows:- (i) The impugned award in so for as it holds the retrenchment of the respondents herein illegal by the petitioner-Corporation is upheld not calling for any interference. (ii) The grant of back wages by the Tribunal to the respondents herein and the award of interest thereupon shall stand set aside; (iii) The reinstatement of the respondents herein ordered in terms of the impugned award shall be applicable to respondents 2 and 4 only; (iv) The Tribunal shall re-visit and reconsider the case of the respondents 1, 3, and 5 afresh for payment of compensation in lieu of the reinstatement besides the grant of retiral benefits, as such, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for re-visiting and reconsidering the said issue expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is made available to the Tribunal. 16. Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 23.06.2022. 17. 16. Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 23.06.2022. 17. Registry to remit back the original record received from the Tribunal forthwith.