JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant petition under Art. 226 of Constitution of India lays challenge to award dated 20.7.2012 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Dharamshala camp at Mandi in Ref. No 209 of 2010 titled Bal Krishan and others v. Superintending Engineer, (Power Wing) HPSEB, whereby learned Tribunal below held petitioners entitled to work charge status with effect from 1.1.1994 alongwith all consequential benefits arising after 1.1.1994. 2. Having carefully perused main ground raised by the petitioner-Board in the petition at hand, this court finds that impugned Award has been laid challenge on the ground that there was no work charge establishment in the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited as such, there was no occasion for learned Tribunal below to grant work charge status after completion of ten years. Since the respondents were engaged in the years 1985, 1984 and 1986 and they all had completed 240 days in each calendar year, they were entitled to be granted work charge status in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 3. Careful perusal of the statement made by Shri Satish Kumar, Resident Engineer, Bassi Power House Bassi, Jogindernagar clearly suggests that the work charge status is/was being given to daily wage employees in the Board. He also admitted that the Notifications issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh are applicable to the Board. 4. Moreover, as has been stated herein above, Hon’ble Division Bench in State of HP and Ors. vs. Sh. Ashwani Kumar, passed in CWP No.3111 of 2016, has already held that cessation of work charge status is of no consequence as far as grant of work charge status and regularization is concerned. Aforesaid judgment in Ashwani Kumar supra, has attained finality. In view of above, main ground raised in the petition does not survive. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 12.1.2023 passed by Division Bench in LPA No. 165 of 2021, titled State of H.P. v. Surajmani and another and other connected matters submitted that aforesaid ground/plea raised by the petitioner Board has been negated by Division Bench in the aforesaid case. He states that it has been categorically held in the judgment that cessation of work charge establishment has to do nothing with regularization as has been held by this court in Ashwani Kumar. 6. He states that it has been categorically held in the judgment that cessation of work charge establishment has to do nothing with regularization as has been held by this court in Ashwani Kumar. 6. Hon'ble Division Bench in State of H.P. v. Surajmani and another supra, has held as under: “56. So far as the cases involving Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited are concerned, learned counsel for the Board has placed reliance on the decision of this Court given in CWP No.211 of 2018, titled Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & others vs. Jagat Singh, wherein, the case of an employee who had been conferred work charge status as a Beldar had claimed that he should be regularized as a Mate on completion of ten years of service. In the said case, it was held that a person who had been working as a Beldar on work charge basis and has been regularized as such, could not claim the relief that he was entitled for conferment of work charge status on the post of Mate as he had accepted his status as work charge Beldar/regular Beldar thereafter. This shows that in the Electricity Board, work charge status is being conferred on the daily wage employees. Hence, the employees working with the Electricity Board and who have completed eight years of service would also be covered by the decision given in Ashwani Kumar’s case supra. 57. In view of the above, the writ petitions filed by the employees are allowed and the respondents are directed to grant work charge status to the employees from the date they had completed eight years of service on daily wage basis in terms of the decision given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar’s case supra. However, benefits consequent to conferment of work charge status in terms of instant judgment shall be restricted to three years for the period prior to filing of petition.” 7. Apart from above ground, no other legal ground has been raised, enabling this court to go into correctness of award impugned in the proceedings. Findings of fact recorded by learned Tribunal below on the basis of appreciation of evidence cannot be questioned in writ proceedings and writ court cannot act as an appellate court. Apart from above ground, no other legal ground has been raised, enabling this court to go into correctness of award impugned in the proceedings. Findings of fact recorded by learned Tribunal below on the basis of appreciation of evidence cannot be questioned in writ proceedings and writ court cannot act as an appellate court. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. 2014 AIR SCW 3157. It is profitable to reproduce paras 16, 17 and 18 of the judgment herein: “16. ………The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior Courts or Tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is no entitled to act as an Appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened for questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the interference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised. 17. The judgments mentioned above can be read with the judgment of this Court in Harjinder Singh’s case (supra), the relevant paragraph of which reads as under: 21. Before concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution in matters like the present one, the High Courts are duty bound to keep in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act and other similar legislative instruments are social welfare legislations and the same are required to be interpreted keeping in view the goals set out in the Preamble of the Constitution and the provisions contained in Part IV thereof in general and Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43 and 43-A in particular, which mandate that the State should secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people, ensure equality between men and women and equitable distribution of material resources of the community to subserve the common good and also ensure that the workers get their dues. More than 41 years ago, Gajendragadkar, J. opined that: 10…. More than 41 years ago, Gajendragadkar, J. opined that: 10…. The concept of social and economic justice is a living concept of revolutionary import; it gives sustenance to the rule of law and meaning and significance to the ideal of welfare State. 18. A careful reading of the judgments reveals that the High Court can interfere with an order of the Tribunal only on the procedural level and in cases, where the decision of the lower Courts has been arrived at in gross violation of the legal principles. The High Court shall interfere with factual aspect placed before the Labour Courts only when it is convinced that the Labour Court has made patent mistakes in admitting evidence illegally or have made grave errors in law in coming to the conclusion on facts. The High Court granting contrary relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution amounts to exceeding its jurisdiction conferred upon it. Therefore, we accordingly answer the point No. 1 in favour of the appellant.” [Emphasis added] 2. In view of above, present petition is dismissed. award dated 20.7.2012 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Dharamshala camp at Mandi in Ref. No 209 of 2010 titled Bal Krishan and others v. Superintending Engineer, (Power Wing) HPSEB is upheld. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of, in all the petitions.