ORDER : B. V. L. N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J. The Writ Petition is filed Under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the award dated 12.07.2019 under I.D.No.65/2015 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. 02. The contention of the petitioner’s company is that the respondents No.1 and 2 worked in their establishment upto 30.04.2014. The petitioner was in the activity of undertaking ship repairs. The respondents No.1 and 2 were engaged for the said purpose on daily basis. The petitioner is having workshop at Kakinada. There had been financial crisis from 2012 onwards. Therefore, the respondents No.1 and 2 services have been discontinued paying retrenchment benefits. They approached conciliation machinery. It was referred to Labour Court and Industrial Dispute, Visakhapatnam by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Zone-II, Eluru, on the ground that the action of the management is illegal. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, by its award dated 12.07.2019 ordered reinstatement of the respondents No.1 and 2 with 50% back wages along with other service benefits. The award was published on 29.10.2019 under G.O.Rt.No.461 dated 25.09.2019. 03. The award is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the factual aspects. The unit of the petitioner at Kakinada was closed followed by the retrenchment. In the absence of any activity, reinstatement with back wages is arbitrary and illegal. The Tribunal did not discuss how the provisions of the Industrial Disputes were not followed by the petitioner. The respondents No.1 and 2 and two more employees were discontinued since there was no work. Even in Vizag unit, except some administrative staff, no technical people are there. The petitioner in his evidence clearly brought this stand by producing profit and loss account statement for the relevant years. There is no evidence that unit is still continuing and undertaking works. Therefore, reinstatement with back wages is illegal. The recourse to section 10 of I.D.Act is not maintainable. Hence, writ is filed to set aside the award passed by the 3 rd respondent. 04. The respondents No.1 and 2 filed counter-affidavit, contending that they worked continuously from the date of their appointment, till 30.04.2014. The petitioner retrenched them illegally by order dated 28.04.2014. They approached the Conciliation Officer i.e., Joint Commissioner of Labour, Zone-II, Eluru. He referred the matter U/s.10(1)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, vide I.D.No.65/2015. The respondents No.1 and 2 filed counter-affidavit, contending that they worked continuously from the date of their appointment, till 30.04.2014. The petitioner retrenched them illegally by order dated 28.04.2014. They approached the Conciliation Officer i.e., Joint Commissioner of Labour, Zone-II, Eluru. He referred the matter U/s.10(1)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, vide I.D.No.65/2015. The Tribunal passed award dated 12.07.2019 holding that the action of the petitioner is illegal and not justified and directed to reinstate the respondents No.1 and 2 into service with 50% back wages from the date of termination, till their reinstatement. The award was published on 29.10.2019 under G.O.Rt.No.461 dated 29.05.2019. 05. The Tribunal basing on the evidence on record, passed the award. No evidence was placed before the Tribunal that there is no activity at Kakinada unit. Therefore, the Tribunal award is justified. The petitioner neither pleaded nor produced any evidence regarding closure of the unit. The writ petition is not maintainable in law, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Management of Maduranatakam Co-op. Sugar Mills Limited Vs. V.S.Viswanathan , AIR 2005 SC 1954 as the findings of the Tribunal is final on facts. The finding of the Tribunal cannot be interfered unless either perverse, based on no evidence or based on evidence, which is not legally acceptable. There is no evidence before the Labour Court that the petitioner unit was closed. Therefore, the decision of the Labour Court is justified. 06. The reference U/s.10(1) and (2) of the I.D.Act is maintainable, made by the Joint Commissioner of Labour and it needs no interference. 07. The witness of the petitioner (M.W-1) admitted that he is working at Vizag, and one Manager is working for docking and engineering at Kakinada and the workmen worked in their company at Kakinada were appointed by the company. The management has not issued any notice U/s.25-F of I.D.Act prior to 28.04.2014, and no document was filed to show that they were paid compensation. He does not know whether company displayed seniority list before effecting termination of the workmen. The averments in the affidavit filed by the petitioner are devoid of merits. The writ petition is not maintainable. 08. The management has not issued any notice U/s.25-F of I.D.Act prior to 28.04.2014, and no document was filed to show that they were paid compensation. He does not know whether company displayed seniority list before effecting termination of the workmen. The averments in the affidavit filed by the petitioner are devoid of merits. The writ petition is not maintainable. 08. Basing on the above rival pleadings, the point that would arises for consideration in the writ petition is as under: “ Whether the award dated 12.07.2019 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, warrants interference and liable to be set aside as prayed for?” 09. POINT : Learned counsel representing Smt.A.V.S.Laxmi, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner argued that the order under challenge, rendered by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, is not justified either on facts or in law. He would further submit that the evidence on record would disclose that the unit of the petitioner at Kakinada was closed and no activities are going on, on the date of retrenchment of the respondents No.1 and 2. Therefore, the award of the Industrial Tribunal to reinstate the respondents No.1 and 2 into service by extending all the service benefits with 50% back wages, from the date of termination, till their reinstatement is illegal on the face of the record. Hence, High Court can interfere in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing Writ of Certiorari, to set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal. 10. He would further submit that the petitioner filed profit and loss balance sheet of the company, showing that the unit of the petitioner at Kakinada was closed. The Tribunal did not consider the same and came to an erroneous decision. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable on facts. 11. Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 vehemently argued that the Writ of Certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by the Tribunals, if they passed orders without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. 11. Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 vehemently argued that the Writ of Certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by the Tribunals, if they passed orders without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. It can be issued only when Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to he 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 is not entitled to act as an Appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence apparent on the fact 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. 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 support of his arguments, he relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Staff Canteen Workers Union , 2000(4) SCC 245 and in the case of Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S.Radhakrishnan , AIR 1964 SC 477 . 12. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 would submit that the Tribunal rendered the impugned award basing on the evidence placed on record. The petitioner did not place any material or evidence before the Tribunal to establish that their unit at Kakinada was not doing any activities as pleaded by them. It is not the case of the petitioner that the award of the Tribunal is a result of no evidence. The petitioner did not place any material or evidence before the Tribunal to establish that their unit at Kakinada was not doing any activities as pleaded by them. It is not the case of the petitioner that the award of the Tribunal is a result of no evidence. Therefore, the finding of the fact reached by the Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened by the questions in the writ proceedings. Hence, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 13. The main contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the award of the Tribunal is against the evidence on record i.e., evidence on record would show that the unit of the petitioner at Kakinadawas closed and not doing any activities. Hence, the award of the Tribunal for reinstatement of the respondents No.1 and 2 with 50% back wages is perverse. 14. The Tribunal in its award observed that the petitioner while terminating the service of workman, did not follow section 25-F of I.D.Act and also did not issue notice before termination or paid one month wages in lieu of notice. The management also did not follow procedure U/s.25-G of I.D.Act, while retrenching the workman and not displayed any seniority list on the notice board of the company nor furnished the list of workmen. Further, it failure to follow procedure ‘ last come first go’ . It also failed to pay terminal benefits as per payment of the Gratuity Act. 15. The Tribunal considered the evidence of the petitioner i.e., both oral and documentary. The Tribunal observed that it is the duty of the management to intimate retrenchment compensation and its payment to the workman. The evidence would show that they did not comply the mandatory provisions U/s.25(F) (a) & (b) of I.D.Act, 1947. There is no evidence placed by the management to prove section 25(F)(c) was followed. 16. M.W-1 is working in the unit of the petitioner at Visakhapatnam. The unit at Kakinada is attended with workers on tender basis. M.W-1 admitted that he did not file account particulars of the branch at Visakhapatnam. Therefore, the management suppressed the facts regarding the losses and activities. The evidence on record would show that prior to termination proceedings, the workmen approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour on 09.04.2014 regarding salaries. Therefore, the management terminated under the guise of financial crises without substantial proof. Therefore, the management suppressed the facts regarding the losses and activities. The evidence on record would show that prior to termination proceedings, the workmen approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour on 09.04.2014 regarding salaries. Therefore, the management terminated under the guise of financial crises without substantial proof. Hence, W-5 and W-6 are illegal as mandatory provision U/s.25-F(a)(b)(c) of the I.D.Act, 1947 are not complied with. Accordingly, set aside the retrenchment orders. 17. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence placed on record came to a categorical finding that no evidence is forthcoming placed by the management to prove their contention regarding closure of the unit at Kakinada, and therefore, ordered reinstatement. 18. The above findings on fact as a result of appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. The petitioner failed to point out any error of law, which is apparent on the face of the record, it can be corrected by this Court by issuing Writ of Certiorari. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit any evidence or erroneously admit inadmissible evidence, which gives the impugned finding. Similarly, nothing has been established to show that the finding of the Tribunal is based on no evidence, to record it as an error of law, which can be corrected by way of Writ of Certiorari. 19. In the light of foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the award dated 12.07.2019 passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.