ORDER : 1. By way of instant petition, petitioners have taken exception to the award dated 30.06.2015 passed by learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, (Camp at Mandi), H.P. (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Reference No. 33/2014 whereby the relief in following terms was granted to respondent No.1- workman: - “18. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, it is held that the petitioner was in continuous uninterrupted service with the respondent from the date of his initial engagement and that the breaks given by the respondent being fictional in nature shall have no effect on the seniority and continuity of service of the petitioner and his seniority shall be reckoned from his initial date of engagement. Accordingly, claim of petitioner is hereby allowed in part and reference is accordingly answered in favour of petitioner. The petitioner shall thus be deemed to be in continuous service of respondent with all consequential benefits except back wages. He shall, however, be considered for regularization by respondent at the time when his juniors have been regularized as per policy governing daily wagers as framed by State Government and operative from time to time. The parties, however, shall bear their own costs.” 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that the workman raised an industrial dispute against the action of employer whereby the workman was being subjected to repeated fictional breaks with a purpose to deny him the benefit of completion of 240 days of service in one calendar year and resultant continuity in service. The workman further claimed discrimination vis-à-vis his juniors, who were allowed to continue to work for 240 days in a year whereas by employing fictional breaks against petitioner he was not allowed to complete the requisite mandays. 3. The appropriate Government made the following reference for adjudication of the Tribunal : “Whether time to time termination of the services of Shri Sohan Lal, S/o Shri Ganga Ram, R/o Village Kraladhi, P.O. Urla, Tehsil Padhar, District Mandi, H.P. during 2006 to 2012 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Joginder Nagar Forest Division, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?” 4. If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?” 4. The workman in his claim petition filed before the learned Tribunal reiterated his stand. The employer contested the claim of the workman on the grounds that he was engaged in forest department as casual labourer and not as daily waged forest worker. The engagement of petitioner was only for seasonal forestry works keeping in view the availability of funds and work. The violation of principle of ‘last come first go’ was also denied. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether time to time termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent is illegal and unjustified as alleged. If so, its effect? OPP 2. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 3. Whether the petition is bad on account of delay and laches as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR 4. Relief. Issue No. 1 was decided in affirmative and petition was allowed in terms as noticed above. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 7. Shri Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has contended that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is absolutely erroneous. The findings returned by learned Tribunal to the effect that the fictional breaks were being granted to respondent No.1-workman were against the material available on record. Shri Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the engagement of workman against seasonal work was duly proved on record and in such view of the matter the findings regarding fictional breaks being granted to the workman are not sustainable. 8. On the other hand, Shri Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, representing respondent No.1-workman has supported the award. He contended that the impugned award suffers from no illegality or perversity. The findings recorded therein are borne out from the available evidence. 9. It is not denied that the workman was initially employed in 2005. The mandays chart Ext.RW-1/B relied upon by the respondents proved that the workman had been working since 01.05.2005 with 92, 89, 31, 182, 211, 212, 122 and 120 days in each successive year till 2013. The findings recorded therein are borne out from the available evidence. 9. It is not denied that the workman was initially employed in 2005. The mandays chart Ext.RW-1/B relied upon by the respondents proved that the workman had been working since 01.05.2005 with 92, 89, 31, 182, 211, 212, 122 and 120 days in each successive year till 2013. Evidently, the engagement of petitioner for 182 days, 211 days, 212 days and 122 days in successive years cannot be said to be engagement for casual or seasonal work. Further, the Divisional Forest Officer, Joginder Nagar while appearing as RW-1 admitted that one Shri Shyam Singh, who was junior to petitioner, was retained in service above the petitioner. 10. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India though is wide, but needs due care and great circumspection, while dealing with the orders of the Tribunals constituted under special legislations. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sadhu Ram vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (1983) 4 SCC 156 has observed as under: “We are afraid the High Court misdirected itself. The jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution is truly wide but for that very reason, it has to be exercised with great circumspection. It is not for the High Court to constitute itself into an appellate court over Tribunals constituted under special legislations to resolve disputes of a kind qualitatively different from ordinary civil disputes and to re-adjudicate upon questions of fact decided by those Tribunals. That the questions decided pertain to jurisdictional facts does not entitle the High Court to interfere with the findings on jurisdictional facts which the Tribunal is well competent to decide. Where the circumstances indicate that the Tribunal has snatched at jurisdiction, the High Court may be justified in interfering. But where the Tribunal gets jurisdiction only if a reference is made and it is therefore impossible ever to say that the Tribunal has clutched at jurisdiction, we do not think that it was proper for the High Court to substitute its judgment for that of the Labour Court and hold that the workman had raised no demand with the management. There was a conciliation proceeding, the conciliation had failed and the Conciliation Officer had so reported to the Government. The Government was justified in thinking that there was an industrial dispute and referring it to the Labour Court.” 11. There was a conciliation proceeding, the conciliation had failed and the Conciliation Officer had so reported to the Government. The Government was justified in thinking that there was an industrial dispute and referring it to the Labour Court.” 11. In State of H.P. and another vs. Biri Singh and another, CWP No. 217 of 2016 decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 22.09.2016, in almost identical facts it has been observed as under: “9. It has been the well-established principle that industrial adjudication is not merely adjudicating contractual rights based on strict principles of law. The higher Courts can interfere against the awards passed by the Labour Courts only if there are manifest errors or the order is contrary to the provisions of law and the order has been passed without jurisdiction and that is the scope of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was held that the High Court cannot sit on appeal over the findings recorded by the competent tribunal by converting itself into a court of appeal.” 12. It is otherwise trite law that this Court will not sit in appeal on the decisions of the Tribunals created under special statutes. It is only in the case of absolute illegality or perversity in the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court that interference by way of writ jurisdiction may be required. The facts of instant case do not warrant any interference. The findings returned by learned Tribunal are borne from the record and thus no perversity can be attached to such findings. 13. Even otherwise it can be seen that the employer has not placed on record any material to establish that the services of the workman were engaged for undertaking forestry works only or to establish that the work was seasonal and dependant upon the grant from the Government. 14. Apart from above, RW-1, the then Divisional Officer revealed on oath that one Shyam Singh was junior to the workman and had been regularized by counting his seniority from the date of initial appointment. On such basis, the violation of Section 25-G was found by the learned Tribunal. The conclusion so drawn by learned Tribunal cannot be faulted in view of the material on record. 15. On such basis, the violation of Section 25-G was found by the learned Tribunal. The conclusion so drawn by learned Tribunal cannot be faulted in view of the material on record. 15. In result, I find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s) if any.