JUDGMENT : ANU SIVARAMAN, J. Writ Appeal No.260/2023 is filed by the Central Silk Board and Writ Appeal No.468/2023 is filed by the Secretary, Central Silk Board Employees Union against the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.19130/2007 connected with Writ Petition No.20513/2007 (L-RES) and Contempt of Court Case No.950/2023 is filed by the Secretary, Central Silk Board Employees Union for disobedience of the same order. 2. We have heard Shri. Aravind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General of India along with Shri. Madhukar M Deshpande, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Secretary, Central Silk Board Employees Union and Shri. Ashok S Haranahalli, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. V.S. Naik, learned advocate appearing for the private respondents. 3. The respondents in Writ Appeal No.260/2023, one hundred and seventy two in number, had filed the writ petitions challenging the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bengaluru ('CGIT' for short) dated 19.09.2007. They had raised a contention that they are all qualified, eligible and entitled to get the benefits of the Scheme known as the "Casual Labourers" (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme, 1993) from the date of its issuance. 4. A dispute arose between the workmen and the appellant and on conciliation failing, the following reference was made by the Central Government to the CGIT as under:- "Whether the claim of the Central Silk Road Employees' Union to adopt the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme of Government of India, 1993 and Pay Scales of the 5 th Pay Commission in respect of casual and timescale farm workers by the Management of the Central Silk Board, Bangalore is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?" 5. The contention of the private respondents was that the scheme in question was formulated by the Central Government and came into force on 10.09.1993. The Union sought the benefits of the Scheme, but the same was not granted by the Board. The matter was referred for conciliation and on conciliation having failed; the Central Government referred the dispute to the CGIT. The parties filed their respective pleadings. The Union sought the benefits of the Scheme, but the same was not granted by the Board. The matter was referred for conciliation and on conciliation having failed; the Central Government referred the dispute to the CGIT. The parties filed their respective pleadings. The CGIT dismissed the reference by its award dated 19.09.2007 stating that the Management Board is a statutory body controlled by the Textile Ministry and that the approval granted to the Scheme on 01.12.2005 had been withdrawn by the Government. Accepting the contention that the Scheme required the sanction of the Central Government and that such sanction had been withdrawn, the CGIT rejected the reference. It was found that the casual labourers working under the Board have no right for conferment of temporary status and that it is only if the Scheme were to be adopted by the Board that the claim of the workmen would arise under the Scheme. It was found that though the Board had recommended the implementation of the Scheme and permission was initially granted by the Central Government, the same was withdrawn and therefore there was no sanction for implementation of the Scheme in the Board. The aggrieved workmen had challenged the said award before this Court. 6. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions and found that the respondent - Board in its 115 th meeting dated 19.03.2005, had passed a unanimous resolution to implement the Scheme in favour of the workmen of the Board. The said resolution passed by the respondent - Board was approved by the Central Government vide order dated 25.11.2005 and Communications dated 15.12.2005 and 10.01.2006 were issued by the Central Government and the Board, granting approval for extension of the Scheme in favour of the workmen. Thereafter, the Central Government issued a communication dated 20.01.2006 followed by Board Circular dated 01.02.2006, withdrawing the approval already granted on 25.11.2005. The learned Single Judge found that since the approval for implementation of the Scheme had been granted by the Central Government after considering all relevant aspects and since the said approval had been effectuated by issuing Circulars dated 15.12.2005 and 10.01.2006 and also on account of the fact that no reason whatsoever was stated in the order withdrawing the approval, the withdrawal of the approval could not be countenanced. Accordingly, the writ petitions were partly allowed. Accordingly, the writ petitions were partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 19.09.2007 passed in C.R.No.122/1999 by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court were set aside. The reference dated 16.11.1999 was allowed-in-part and the respondent - Board was directed to implement, grant and extend the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993, in favour of the petitioners and all other workmen of the respondent - Board with all benefits accruing there from for the period from 19.03.2005 onwards and settle all the dues in their favour. The Central Silk Board is in appeal as regards the positive directions of the learned Single Judge while the Union is in appeal against limiting of the benefit from 19.03.2005. 7. The Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the appellant - Central Silk Board submits that there was no challenge as against the Order of the Central Government withdrawing the approval and that the learned Single Judge grievously erred in granting a benefit that was not even sought for by the writ petitioners. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have noticed that what was being exercised was only supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that the learned Single Judge could not have issued the directions as sought for. Further, it is contended that there was clearly no error apparent on the face of the record or any perversity, if the findings of the CGIT-cum-Labour Court. In the absence of such patent legality or perversity, the writ Court was not justified in having passed the orders which were not even sought for. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the Central Silk Board before the learned Single Judge had placed reliance on the following decisions:- - B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees’ Association & Ors reported in AIR 2006 SC 3106 ; - Food Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. Bhanu Lodh and Ors reported in AIR 2005 SC 2775; - Punjab National Bank and others v. Manjeet Singh and another reported in AIR 2007 SC 262; - Ceat Ltd., Vs. Vs. Bhanu Lodh and Ors reported in AIR 2005 SC 2775; - Punjab National Bank and others v. Manjeet Singh and another reported in AIR 2007 SC 262; - Ceat Ltd., Vs. Murphy India Employees Union reported in AIR 2006 SC 2412 ; - Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Management of M/s. Birla Cotton spinning and weaving Mills Ltd., & Others reported in AIR 2005 SC 1782; - Reepak Kansal v. Union and others reported in (2021) 9 SCC 251 ; - The State of Maharashtra & Anr v. Bhagwan & Ors in Civil Appeals No.7632- 7684/2021 dated 10.01.2022; - State of Maharasthra and other v. Anita and Another reported in (2016)8 SCC 293 ; - W.M. ANGANI v. Badri Das and others decided in C.A.NO.881/1961 dated 25.03.1963; - Oil And Natural Gas Corporation v. Krishna Gopal and others in Civil Appeal No.1878/2016 dated 07.02.2020; - The New Maneck Chowk Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad and others v. The Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad reported in AIR 1961 SC 867 ; - B.N. Nagarajan and others v. State of Mysore and Ors reported in AIR 1966 SC 1942; - Sukhdev Singh and Ors. V. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Anr reported in AIR 1975 SC 1331 , and - Tulsi Das and others v. Govt. of A.P. and others reported in AIR 2003 SC 43 . 9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents - workmen, would, on the other hand, contend that contentions raised in the appeal are highly hyper- technical and cannot be countenanced in a writ appeal filed from an order passed by the learned Single Judge in a labour matter. It is submitted that in case the contention of the appellant that what was being exercised by the learned Single Judge was only the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India were to be accepted, there would be no scope for an appeal being filed by the appellant from an order passed in the writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India alone. It is contended that it is only if the adjudication by the learned Single Judge was under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well that the writ appeal would be maintainable. 10. It is contended that it is only if the adjudication by the learned Single Judge was under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well that the writ appeal would be maintainable. 10. Further, it is contended that it was after considering all the relevant aspects of the matter including the financial implications as evident from Annexures 'B' to 'F' produced along with the writ petitions that the Board had recommended the implementation of the Scheme to its employees. The financial impact was clearly considered and the Board was of the clear opinion that the benefits were liable to be extended to the Workmen. It was considering all these aspects of the matter that approval had been granted by the Central Government. Thereafter, no reasons whatsoever were stated by the Central Government for withdrawing its approval. It is further contended that since the dispute raised before the CGIT-cum-Labour Court was specifically with regard to implementation of the Scheme to employees of the Board, the reliefs granted by the learned Single Judge were well within the purview of the orders that could have been granted by the Labour Court and therefore the impugned judgment is unassailable. 11. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents would place reliance on the following decisions in support of the contentions:- - The Bharat Bank Limited, Delhi v. The Employees of the Bharat Bank Limited, Delhi and the Bharat Bank Employee's Union, Delhi reported in AIR 1950 SC 188 ; - Western India Automobile Association v. The Industrial Tribunal, Bombay and Ors. reported in AIR 1949 Federal Court 111 - Messrs. Crown Aluminium Works v. Their Workmen reported in AIR 1958 SC 30 ; - Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 494 ; - Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana reported in (2009) 8 SCC 556 ; - Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and Others reported in AIR 1980 SC 1896 , and - General Manager, Electrical Rengali Hydro Elcetric Project, Orissa and Others v. Giridhari Sahu and Others reported in (2019) 10 SCC 695 . 12. We have considered the contentions advanced. The employees had raised a dispute with regard to non- implementation of the 1993 Scheme to the Casual Employees of the appellant - Board. 12. We have considered the contentions advanced. The employees had raised a dispute with regard to non- implementation of the 1993 Scheme to the Casual Employees of the appellant - Board. The dispute had been referred for adjudication to the CGIT. A writ petition filed by the workmen challenging the Order of the Central Government withdrawing the approval granted to the Silk Board to implement the Scheme was disposed of recording that the dispute is pending before the CGIT and leaving open all contentions to be adjudicated therein. The question whether the workmen are entitled to the benefit of the 1993 Scheme in respect of Casual and Timescale Farm Workers was specifically referred to the CGIT for adjudication. The Board took a contention before the CGIT that the benefit could not be extended to its workmen since the approval granted by the Central Government to implement the Scheme in the Board had been withdrawn. The CGIT came to the conclusion that the Scheme could be implemented in the Board only with the approval of the Central Government and since such approval stood withdrawn, the employees have no claim. It was this award which was under challenge before the learned Single Judge. 13. The Apex Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited and Others v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and Others reported in (1980) 2 SCC 593 , has clearly held that an arbitrator under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a Tribunal amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Further, in Bharat Bank Limited v. Employees of Bharat Bank Limited reported in (1950) SCC 470 , the nature of adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal was discussed in detail and it was held that a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. In Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath and Others reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 , it was held that all Courts and Tribunals in the jurisdiction of the High Court are subordinate to it and subject to its control and supervision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was further held that orders of Civil Court stand on a different footing from orders of authorities or Tribunals or Courts other than judicial Civil Courts and that a Writ of Certiorari would not be maintainable as against an order of a Civil Court. It was further held that orders of Civil Court stand on a different footing from orders of authorities or Tribunals or Courts other than judicial Civil Courts and that a Writ of Certiorari would not be maintainable as against an order of a Civil Court. However, so far as orders of the Labour Court are concerned, it is clear that the power can be exercised both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. In an adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it has to be remembered that what is intended is the resolution of disputes and the progress of industry without impediments and the hyper-technical contentions may have no place in an adjudication in Labour Law. Consequently, all questions which are required to be considered for arriving at a proper decision as to whether the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court was proper or not are within the realm of the adjudication in judicial review as well. Further, it is clear from the judgments of the Apex Court that are relied on by the workmen that the adjudication by the Tribunal is subject to judicial review by this Court as well. It is also pertinent to note that a Writ Petition had been filed challenging the withdrawal of the permission granted by the Central Government, which was disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 14.08.2007 on the ground that the Industrial Dispute was pending before the Labour Court. All contentions of the parties raised in the writ petitions were left open to be considered by the CGIT. The learned Single Judge considered the pleadings and the materials on record and came to the conclusion that the decision taken by the Central Government to revoke the approval already granted was not informed by any reason and that the approval had initially been granted after considering all the relevant aspects. The learned Single Judge therefore proceeded to hold that the withdrawal of the approval was bad in law and that the employees were entitled to the benefits on the basis of the approval granted on 27.12.2005. In the said circumstances, the contention that the validity of the order withdrawing sanction could not have been considered by the learned Single Judge cannot be accepted. 15. In the said circumstances, the contention that the validity of the order withdrawing sanction could not have been considered by the learned Single Judge cannot be accepted. 15. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge, exercising the power of judicial review, was well within his powers to consider whether the rejection of the claim made by the Workmen before the CGIT was proper or not. Apparently, the learned Single Judge considered the contentions and the materials on record and came to a conclusion that the approval had been recommended and granted after considering all relevant aspects including the financial capability of the Board. This is evident from the recommendation of the Board and the order granting approval. Such grant of approval and implementation of the Scheme was duly intimated to the workmen by issuance of a Circular by the Board. Thereafter, the approval was withdrawn. No reasons whatsoever were stated for the withdrawal of approval. The text of the order of withdrawal reads as follows:- "I am directed to refer to this Ministry's letter of even number dated 25.11.2005 on the above subject and to say that the recommendation to apply the Casual Laborers grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Schemes of Government of India 1993 to the causal farm workers and Time Scale Farm Workers of Central Silk Board has not been approved. The orders issued vide Ministry's letter No.25011/30/93-Silk dated 25.11.2005 are withdrawn forthwith. The Central Silk Board may take the position before the High Court/Industrial Tribunal that the scheme is not applicable to its farm workers who are governed by their own rules. Thus the order dated 25.11.2005 is withdrawn forthwith and Central Silk Board is advised to take the position before the Hon'ble High Court/Industrial Tribunal as stated above." Since an answer to the dispute raised before the CGIT could be arrived at only on considering the legality or otherwise of the order of withdrawal of approval, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in having held that the withdrawal of approval was not proper and was not supported by any reasons. 16. We notice that the Union has filed an appeal against the judgment on the ground that the resolution passed by the Board in its meeting held on 19.03.2005 was to extend the benefit of the Scheme. 16. We notice that the Union has filed an appeal against the judgment on the ground that the resolution passed by the Board in its meeting held on 19.03.2005 was to extend the benefit of the Scheme. It is therefore contended that the Timescale Farm Workers working in the Board were entitled to the benefit of the Scheme with effect from 1993 itself and the limiting of the benefit from 19.03.2005 is therefore not proper. 17. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the Board had recommended the grant of benefits of 1993 Scheme prospectively, with effect from 01.12.2005. It was this approval which was withdrawn by letter dated 20.01.2006. The learned Single Judge has considered the rival contentions and is also considered the order of approval as well as the Circulars and Memoranda issued and has held that the benefit of the Scheme is to be made applicable with effect from 19.03.2005, that is, the date on which the Board decided to implement the Scheme in favour of the workmen. Having considered the contentions advanced, we find no ground to interfere in the exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge. 18. In the result:- (i) Writ Appeals No.260/2023 and 468/2023 fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. (ii) Necessary action to be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (iii) In the light of the directions issued, Contempt of Court Case No.950/2023 is closed. All pending interlocutory applications shall stand dismissed.