JUDGMENT : This is employer’s petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the award dated 02.03.2020 given by Industrial Tribunal, Haldwani in Adjudication Case No. 04 of 2019. By the said award, retrenchment of 303 workmen, by M/s Bhagwati Products Ltd. was declared to be unjust and violative of Section 25-N of Industrial Disputes Act (Central Act). 2. It is not in dispute that the reference was made by Labour Commissioner, Uttarakhand under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. English translation of the dispute, which was referred for adjudication, is given below:- “1. Whether the retrenchment of 303 workmen (as per list enclosed) by M/s Bhagwati Products Limited, Plot No. 18, Sector-02, Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar is proper or legal, as the workmen allege that retrenchment/lockdown is without prior notice? If not, then to what relief the workmen are entitled to and with what details” 3. Petitioner has challenged the award on the ground that Section 25-N of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act) could not have been invoked by the Industrial Tribunal for deciding validity of retrenchment, when reference was made under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, according to him, Industrial Tribunal has travelled beyond the scope of reference, by recording a finding that retrenchment is in violation of Section 25-N of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act). Thus, the question, which falls for consideration in the present case, is whether, in the facts and circumstances, learned Industrial Tribunal was justified in invoking the provision contained in Section 25-N of the Central Act, when the dispute was referred under the State Act. 4. In the impugned award, averments made by workmen as well as employer in their written statements, have been reproduced in extenso. The employer admitted that approximately 384 persons were employed in the factory in December, 2018, therefore, applicability of Chapter V-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act) cannot be questioned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to significant reduction in the market share of the petitioner due to technological advancement, 303 workmen were retrenched by following the procedure contained in Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with U.P. Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957; retrenchment notice was pasted on the notice board on 27.12.2018. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to significant reduction in the market share of the petitioner due to technological advancement, 303 workmen were retrenched by following the procedure contained in Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with U.P. Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957; retrenchment notice was pasted on the notice board on 27.12.2018. He further submits that all legal dues, including one month’s notice pay, retrenchment compensation etc., were offered through cheque to concerned workmen, as per provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and out of 303 workmen, 144 accepted retrenchment by accepting retrenchment compensation. 6. Paragraph no. 9 of the impugned award reveals that representatives of both the parties had submitted that the dispute referred for adjudication can be decided on legal issues only and further had expressed their readiness to address on the legal question involved in the matter. Learned Tribunal had given liberty to the parties to adduce evidence, if needed, at the stage of final hearing. 7. Learned Industrial Tribunal has observed in the award that none of the parties requested for opportunity to adduce evidence and they confined their arguments to legal questions only, therefore, the dispute was decided based on the rival contentions on question of law. 8. Before Industrial Tribunal, the workmen argued that they have been retrenched by applying provisions of State Act; while, as per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation & another Vs. Jabar Singh & others, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 112, procedure prescribed in Section 25-N of the Central Act should have been applied. Thus, workmen contended that since mandatory procedure contained in Section 25-N of Central Act was not followed, therefore, their retrenchment is bad and they are entitled to reinstatement with all benefits. 9. Employer had relied upon the statement made by the workmen in their written statement that, after their retrenchment, fresh hands were engaged through contractor for contending that there was no lockout in the factory, therefore, legality of lockout is not an issue to be decided. 10. 9. Employer had relied upon the statement made by the workmen in their written statement that, after their retrenchment, fresh hands were engaged through contractor for contending that there was no lockout in the factory, therefore, legality of lockout is not an issue to be decided. 10. Before the Tribunal, employer cited a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Omprakash Upadhyay, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 89 , for contending that the provisions contained in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act), cannot be made applicable in cases, which are covered by U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Another judgment rendered in the case of Engineering Kaamgar Union v. M/s Electro Steel Casting Ltd., reported in (2004) 6 SCC 36 , was relied upon by the employer in support of his contention that State Act would prevail in case of repugnancy with Central Act, if it was reserved for consideration of the President and has received his assent under Article 254(2) of Indian Constitution. Before the Tribunal, employer had also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 536 , for the proposition that jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to the terms of reference, therefore, it cannot go beyond the reference. 11. It was further contended by the employer before Tribunal that the judgment rendered in the case of Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation & another Vs. Jabar Singh & others (supra) is based on a wrong concession given by learned counsel appearing for the employer, therefore, the said judgment cannot be treated as binding precedent. 12. Learned Tribunal has dealt with the rival contentions made on behalf of the parties in detail and by relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation & another Vs. Jabar Singh & others (supra), it has come to the conclusion that Section 25-N of the Central Act would be applicable to the facts of the case; since the mandatory procedure prescribed in Section 25-N of the Central Act was not followed, therefore, retrenchment is bad. 13. Section 1(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act) provides that it shall extend to the whole of India. 13. Section 1(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act) provides that it shall extend to the whole of India. The expression “appropriate Government” has been defined in Section 2(a) of the said Act and, under Section 2(a)(ii), State Government is the appropriate Government in respect of certain category of industries. Section 38 of the Central Act confers rule making power upon the appropriate Government, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. In exercise of the said rule making power, State of Uttar Pradesh framed Rules known as Industrial Disputes (Uttar Pradesh) Rules, 1976, which were notified in the official gazette on 06.03.1976. Rule 2, 3, 4 & 5 of the said Rules are reproduced below for ready reference : “2. Definition- In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires- (a) ‘Act’ means the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; (b) ‘Form’ means a form appended to these rules; (c) ‘section’ means a section of the Act; (d) Words and expressions used in these rules and not defined therein, but defined in the Act shall have meanings assigned to them in the Act. 3. Application for permission to lay-off under section 25M- (1) Application for permission to lay-off any workman under sub-section (1) of Section 25 M or for permission to continue a lay-off under sub-section (2) of the said section, shall be made in Form ‘A’ and delivered to the authority specified under sub-section (1) either personally or by Registered Post Acknowledgment due and where the application is sent by registered post the date on which the same was delivered to the said authority shall be deemed to be the date on which the application was made, for the purposes of sub-section (4) of the said section. (2) The application for permission shall be made in triplicate and sufficient number of copies of the application for service on the workmen concerned shall also be submitted alongwith the application. (3) The employer concerned shall furnish to the authority to whom the application for permission has been made such further information as the authority considers necessary for arriving at a decision on the application, as and when called for by such authority so as to enable the authority to communicate the permission or refusal to grant permission within the period specified in sub-section (4) of Section 25M. (4) Where the permission to lay-off has been granted by the said authority, the employer concerned shall give to the Deputy Labour Commissioner or Assistant Labour Commissioner of the area concerned, a notice of commencement and termination of such lay-off in Forms ‘B’ and ‘C’ respectively and where permission to continue a lay-off has been granted by the said authority, the employer shall give to the Deputy Labour Commissioner or Assistant Labour Commissioner of the area concerned, a notice of commencement of such lay-off in Form ‘B’, in case such a notice has not already been given, and a notice of termination of such lay-off in Form ‘C’. (5) The notice of commencement and termination of lay-off referred to in sub-rule (4) shall be given within seven days of such commencement or termination, as the case may be. 4. Notice of, and application for permission for, retrenchment.- (1) Notice under (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 25 N for retrenchment shall be served in Form ‘D’ on such authority as may be specified by the State Government either personally or by registered post acknowledgment due and where the notice is served by registered post, the date on which the same was delivered to such authority shall be deemed to be the date of service of the notice for the purposes of sub-section (3) of the said section. (2) Application for permission for retrenchment under sub-section (4) of Section 25N shall be made in Form ‘E’ (with attested copy of the notice given by the employer under clause (a) of Section 25F and delivered to such authority as may be specified by the State Government either personally or by registered post acknowledgment due and where application is sent by registered post the date on which the same was delivered to the State Government or the authority shall be deemed to be the date on which the application was made for the purposes of sub-section (5) of the said section. (3) The notice or, as the case may be, the application shall be served in triplicate and sufficient number of copies of the application for service on the workmen concerned shall be submitted alongwith the notice or, as the case may be, the application. (3) The notice or, as the case may be, the application shall be served in triplicate and sufficient number of copies of the application for service on the workmen concerned shall be submitted alongwith the notice or, as the case may be, the application. (4) The employer concerned shall furnish to the State Government or the authority to whom the notice for retrenchment has been given or the application for permission for retrenchment has been made under clause (c) of sub-section (1), or, as the case may be, sub-section (4) of the said Section 25N, such further information as the State Government or, as the case may be, the authority considers necessary for arriving at a decision on notice or, as the case may be, application, as and when called for by such authority, so as to enable the State Government or the authority to communicate its permission or refusal to grant permission within the period specified in sub-section (3), or, as the case may be, sub-section (5) of the said Section 25N. 5. Notice of, and application for, permission for, closure.- (1) Notice under sub-section (1) of Section 25O of intended closure shall be given in Form ‘F’ served on the State Government either personally or by registered post acknowledgment due. (2) Application for permission to close down an undertaking, under sub-section (3) of Section 25O, shall be made in Form ‘G’ [with attested copy of the notice served by the employer under subsection (1) of Section 25FFA in Form ‘H’] and shall be delivered to the State Government either personally or by registered post acknowledgment due and where the application is sent by registered post the date on which the same was delivered to the State Government shall be deemed to be the date on which the application was made for the purposes of sub-section (4) of the said Section 25O. (3) The notice, or, as the case may be, the application shall be made in triplicate. (4) The employer concerned shall furnish to the State Government to whom the notice of intended closure has been given or the application for permission to close down has been made such further information as the State Government considers necessary, for arriving at a decision on the notice, or, as the case may be, the application, and calls for from such employer.” 14. Perusal of Rule 3, 4 and 5 of the aforesaid Rules reveals that provisions contained in Section 25M, 25N & 25O of the Central Act were made applicable in State of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, before lay of or retrenchment of a workman, notice in the form prescribed in the said Rules would be required to be given to the Competent Authority under Rule 3 & 4. Similarly, Rule 5 provides that notice of intended closure in Section 25 O shall be given by the employer to the State Government in the form prescribed in the said Rules. 15. From the aforesaid Rules of 1976, it is apparent that provisions contained in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act) were made applicable even in respect of such industries in State of Uttar Pradesh, to which State Act was otherwise applicable. In 1976, when the aforesaid Rules were framed, Uttarakhand was part of State of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, upon State Re-organization, the aforesaid Rules are applicable in State of Uttarakhand by virtue of Section 86 of Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. In the case of Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation & another Vs. Jabar Singh & others (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the aforesaid Rules of 1976 framed under the Central Act and held that these Rules are applicable to State of Uttaranchal also (now Uttarakhand). Paragraph nos. 31 to 35 of the said judgment are reproduced below:- “31. Mr Bharat Sangal, therefore, submitted that the work of cutting of trees and converting them into logs constitute manufacturing process for the purpose of Section 2(k) of the Factories Act and the various areas of the forest where the said work is being conducted would form part of the factory for the purposes of Section 2(m) of the said Act. Thus, the establishment of the appellant Corporation would, in our opinion, fall within the definition of industrial establishment as contained in Section 25-L and, therefore, Section 25-N would be applicable to the establishment of the appellant Corporation. It is also submitted that though Uttaranchal Forest Corporation is covered by the provisions of the U.P. Act, however, in terms of the 1976 Rules Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable to the State of Uttaranchal and, therefore, to the establishment of the appellant Corporation. 32. It is also submitted that though Uttaranchal Forest Corporation is covered by the provisions of the U.P. Act, however, in terms of the 1976 Rules Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable to the State of Uttaranchal and, therefore, to the establishment of the appellant Corporation. 32. The appellant Corporation, while issuing the retrenchment notices dated 31-5-1995 as well as other notices issued between 31-3-1995 to 31-5-1995, did not comply with either of the two requirements of Section 25-N, namely, giving 3 months’ notice to the workmen in writing or paying them 3 months’ wages in lieu thereof and taking of prior permission from the appropriate Government, the retrenchment of the respondent workmen by the Corporation was done contrary to the provisions of clause (1) of Section 25-N and is illegal. 33. Clause (7) of Section 25-N statutorily provides that: “25-N. (7) Where no application for permission under sub-section (1) is made, or where the permission for any retrenchment has been refused, such retrenchment shall be deemed to be illegal from the date on which the notice of retrenchment was given to the workman and the workman shall be entitled to all the benefits under any law for the time being in force as if no notice had been given to him.” The submission made in this behalf by learned counsel for the respondents merit acceptance. Thus, the retrenchment notices mentioned above being illegal from the date of the said notices and the workmen being entitled to all the benefits, in the present case, all the workmen concerned are entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service. 34. Mr Dhruv Mehta also submitted that the retrenchment orders passed by the Corporation are invalid in law for non-compliance with the statutory provisions of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 25-N which falls in Chapter V-B was inserted by Act 32 of 1976 w.e.f. 5-3-1976 and as the heading suggests, deals with special provisions relating to layoff, retrenchment and closure in certain establishments. Section 25-N which falls in Chapter V-B was inserted by Act 32 of 1976 w.e.f. 5-3-1976 and as the heading suggests, deals with special provisions relating to layoff, retrenchment and closure in certain establishments. The objects and reasons and the circumstances which led to the enactment of this Chapter which includes Section 25-N have been discussed by this Court in a Constitution Bench judgment rendered in Workmen v. Meenakshi Mills Ltd. The relevant portion of para 22 is set out hereinbelow: (SCC p. 360) “By requiring prior scrutiny of the reasons for the proposed retrenchment in industrial establishments employing not less than 300 workers, Section 25-N seeks to prevent the hardship that may be caused to the affected workmen as a result of retrenchment, because, at the commencement of his employment, a workman naturally expects and looks forward to security of service spread over a long period and retrenchment destroy his hopes and expectations. The retrenched workman is, suddenly and without his fault, thrown on the street and has to face the grim problem of unemployment. (See Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, SCR at pp. 36-37.) Often the workman is retrenched when he is advanced in age and his energies are declining and it becomes difficult for him to compete in the employment market with younger people in securing employment. Retrenchment compensation payable under Section 25-F may be of some assistance but it cannot go far to help him tide over the hardship especially when the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court get prolonged. The plight of the retrenched workman has to be considered in the light of the prevailing conditions of unemployment and underemployment in the country.” 35. It is thus clear that Section 25-N was brought in for the purpose of giving protection to workmen against retrenchment by making prior scrutiny by the Government as a condition precedent.” 16. In view of the aforesaid authoritative judicial pronouncement in the case of Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation & another Vs. Jabar Singh & others (supra), the submission made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that Section 25-N of the Central Act cannot be applied to a case where reference is made under Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be accepted. In view of the aforesaid authoritative judicial pronouncement in the case of Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation & another Vs. Jabar Singh & others (supra), the submission made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that Section 25-N of the Central Act cannot be applied to a case where reference is made under Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be accepted. Since the State Government, by invoking its rule making power under Section 38 of the Central Act, has made Section 25M, 25N and 25O of the Central Act applicable in State of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, judgment rendered in the case of U.P. Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Omprakash Upadhyay, reported (Supra) and Engineering Kaamgar Union v. M/s Electro Steel Casting Ltd. (Supra) are distinguishable on facts. There is no conflict between State Law and Central Law in the present case, as the State Government itself has adopted certain provisions of Central Act and made them applicable in the State, by making Rules. 17. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner would submit that since 144 workmen out of total 303, who were retrenched, have accepted retrenchment compensation, therefore, learned Labour Court erred in answering the reference in favour of those 144 workmen also. Thus, according to him, after accepting the retrenchment, such workmen were not entitled to any relief. The said submission though looks attractive in the first blush, however, on deeper scrutiny, it does not hold much substance. Section 25 N (7) of Industrial Disputes Act (Central) is reproduced below: “25N. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.— ….. ….. ….. (7) Where no application for permission under sub-section (1) is made, or where the permission for any retrenchment has been refused, such retrenchment shall be deemed to be illegal from the date on which the notice of retrenchment was given to the workman and the workman shall be entitled to all the benefits under any law for the time being in force as if no notice had been given to him.” 18. Admittedly, prior permission of the appropriate Government was not sought by the employer before ordering for retrenchment, therefore, retrenchment of all 303 workmen shall be deemed to be illegal from the date, on which the notice of retrenchment was given to workmen. Admittedly, prior permission of the appropriate Government was not sought by the employer before ordering for retrenchment, therefore, retrenchment of all 303 workmen shall be deemed to be illegal from the date, on which the notice of retrenchment was given to workmen. In other words, retrenchment, without permission of appropriate Government, would be void-ab-intio for non-compliance of mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 25 N of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central), therefore, even if some workman accept retrenchment compensation after retrenchment, that will not give legitimacy to the retrenchment, which is otherwise illegal. 19. Learned counsel appearing for the workmen would submit that even if employer had followed the procedure prescribed in Section 6 N of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act while retrenching the workman, then also retrenchment would be bad for non-compliance of mandatory provision contained in Section 25-N of Central Act, which has been made applicable in State of Uttar Pradesh by Industrial Disputes (Uttar Pradesh) Rules, 1976. In support of this contention, he has relied upon a judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jabar Singh and others Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others reported in 2003 UD 365, which was affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation & another Vs. Jabar Singh & others (supra). Paragraph nos. 46 to 50 of the judgment rendered by coordinate Bench are reproduced below:- “46. Thus, it is seen that all the requirements of Section 25K and Section 25L are fulfilled. As such the provisions of Section 25N, contained in Chapter V-B are attracted. The finding recorded by the Labour Court that the Forest Corporation is not an industrial establishment within the meaning of Section 25L of the Industrial Disputes Act is not correct and is liable to be set aside. 47. The Labour Court held that since the reference was made under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, Section 25-N of the Central Act was not attracted. It has wrongly applied the judgment of the Apex Court in U.P. Electric Supply Company Ltd. v. R.K. Shukla and Anr. 47. The Labour Court held that since the reference was made under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, Section 25-N of the Central Act was not attracted. It has wrongly applied the judgment of the Apex Court in U.P. Electric Supply Company Ltd. v. R.K. Shukla and Anr. reported in MANU/SC/0333/1969 : 1969 (2) SCC 400 as the said judgment was rendered by the Apex Court prior to the amendment brought in the Industrial Disputes Act adding Chapter V, which is evident from the following paragraph: Some argument was advanced before us that in determining matters relating to the award of retrenchment compensation, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, apply. The question is academic, because on the points in controversy between the parties, the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are substantially the same. 48. In the instant case the question of applicability of provisions contained in Chapter V-B has arisen which was not a question before the Apex Court in case U.P. Electric Supply Company Ltd. v. R.K. Shukla and Anr. (supra). The Chapter V-B was inserted by the Industrial Disputes (amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 38 of 1976). 49. The judgment is prior to amendment, the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 50. The validity, legality or illegality, of a retrenchment order referred for adjudication does not depend on the factor that under which provision the reference is made, i.e., either under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act or under Section 10 of the Central Act. The validity of the retrenchment is to be judged whether the retrenchment is in accordance with the provisions of either 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act which is pari materia with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act or is in accordance with Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. As it has been held in this judgment that in the facts and circumstances of the case, 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act was attracted, therefore, the validity of the retrenchment order is to be adjudged solely by determining the question as to whether the provisions of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act were complied with or not.” 20. The submission made by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner that learned Industrial Tribunal acted without jurisdiction by invoking Section 25 N of Central Act for deciding the question of validity of retrenchment in a dispute referred under the State Act, is without force. Although, Industrial Tribunal or learned Labour Court is a Court of limited jurisdiction, which has to decide the dispute within four corners of the reference made by the Competent Authority, however, it is certainly empowered to go into the incidental issues. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 536 , has made the following observation regarding jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal vis-a-vis the reference order. Paragraph no. 16 of the judgment, is reproduced below: “16. The Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act is a creature of that statute. It acquires jurisdiction on the basis of reference made to it. The Tribunal has to confine itself within the scope of the subject matter of reference and cannot travel beyond the same. This is the view taken by this Court in number of cases including in National Engg. Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan. It is for this reason that it becomes the bounden duty of the appropriate Government to make the reference appropriately which is reflective of the real/ exact nature of “dispute” between the parties.” 21. However, in the present case, it cannot be said that learned Tribunal travelled beyond the scope of reference. Learned Tribunal has considered the question of validity of retrenchment of 303 workmen based on the applicable law. Since Section 25 N of the Central Act is applicable in State of Uttar Pradesh (and also Uttarakhand) by virtue of Industrial Disputes (Uttar Pradesh) Rules, 1976, therefore, the contention raised on behalf of petitioner that validity of retrenchment in question was to be judged on the touchstone of Section 6 N of the State Act alone, cannot be accepted. Since Section 25 N of the Central Act is applicable in State of Uttar Pradesh (and also Uttarakhand) by virtue of Industrial Disputes (Uttar Pradesh) Rules, 1976, therefore, the contention raised on behalf of petitioner that validity of retrenchment in question was to be judged on the touchstone of Section 6 N of the State Act alone, cannot be accepted. It is nobody’s case that learned Tribunal has recorded finding on a question, which was not referred for adjudication. While answering the reference, a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, is required to consider all applicable statutes and Industrial Disputes (Uttar Pradesh) Rules, 1976 is one such statute, which was to be borne in mind, while judging validity of retrenchment ordered by M/s Bhagwati Products Ltd. (employer). 22. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award which may warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 23. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam & another Vs. Chhabi Nath & others, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 616 , has held that power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 of Constitution of India has to be exercised very sparingly to keep Tribunals and Courts within the bounds of their authority and it has been further held that such power is not to be exercised to correct a mistake of fact and law. In such view of the matter also, there is no scope for interference with the impugned award. 24. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.