JUDGMENT
Susanta Chatterji, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 24th June, 1987 and award dated 17th November, 1988 being Annexure “E” and “H” to the writ petition made by the respondent No. 1 and for other consequential reliefs on the ground that the respondent No. 1 erred in law in holding the plea of the domestic servant has since been not proved and the impugned order suffers from various irregularities and illegalities. It is stated in detail that the respondent No. 3, Sk. Lokman joined the residence of Dr. Mabud as a domestic servant in 1975 for doing house-hold duties and on 29th January, 1981 the said respondent No. 3 ran away after committing theft of a wrist watch of his master for which a diary was lodged at the Park Street Police Station. It is alleged that sometime thereafter Dr. Mabud started receiving letters from the respondent No. 5 that his service was illegally terminated in violating the provisions of The Industrial Disputes Act. On the point urged before this Court, the respondent No. 3 was not the employee of the Nursing Home and the impugned reference and the award are contrary to the provisions of law.
2. The writ petition is contested by the workman by filing affidavit. There is also an affidavit-in-Reply filed controverting the facts alleged thereto.
3. Having heard the learned lawyers appearing for the respective parties at length, this Court finds that by the impugned award, it has been found that the workman was an employee, of the said Nursing Home and his service has been terminated without following the procedures as contemplated under the law. The position was however that the employer having lost the confidence on the workman would not reinstate him, but the workman is found entitled to full compensation. It has also been found’ that Sk. Lokman is entitled to wages from 18th March, 1981 to the date of the award i.e. 17th November, 1988. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has come up to this Court.
4. This Court is not sitting in appeal upon a decision of the Tribunal. The writ Court has to examine only the decision making process within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution. If there is any jurisdictional error or if there is any perversity the writ Court may interfere. Nothing has been demonstrated before this Court that the impugned award suffers from any perversity or there is any jurisdictional error. This Court does not find any merit in the submission of the employer and finding no merit in the petition, the writ petition is rejected and the interim orders passed therein are vacated.
5. It is made clear that if the employer does not pay any compensation to the respondent No. 3, Sk. Lokman within a period of 30 days from date, the workman will be entitled to recover his dues in accordance with law.
There will be no order as to costs.
All parties are to act on signed copy of the operative part of the judgment on the usual undertaking.