ORDER
N.K. Sodhi, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 6-5-1998 passed by the Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak whereby the reference made to it under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) was answered in favour of the workman-respondent and against the petitioner management.
2. It is common ground between the parties that respondent No. 2 was appointed as a Winder on 3-6-1990 and he continued working till 27-1-1993. It is also admitted that the workman proceeded on leave from 1-1-1993 to 27-1-1993 which was duly sanctioned by the management. According to the workman when he reported for duty on 28-1-1993 he was not allowed to join whereas according to the management the workman absented himself for more than twenty days after 27-1-1993 and lost his lien on the post in terms of the Certified Standing Orders as applicable to the employees. The workman is alleged to have made representations to the management on 29-1-1993, 3-2-1993 and 8-2-1993 but since the management did not allow him to join duty he served a demand notice which gave rise to the industrial dispute. The management, however, contends that since the workman had absented himself he was served with a notice dated 16-2-1993 to report for duty.
3. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court found that the workman reported for duty on 28-1-1993 but he was not allowed to join and that is why he sent representations on 29-1-1993, 3-2-1993 and 8-2-1993 which duly stand proved on the record. The Labour Court has further held that issuance of the letter dated 16-2-1993 Exhibit M-4 on its record by the management asking the workman to report for duty is highly doubtful for the reasons given in the impugned award. We have perused the findings recorded by the Labour Court and find no ground to interfere with them. Based as they are on evidence produced by the parties the findings do not warrant interference by us in the exercise of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction. It is by now well settled that this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction does not sit as a Court of appeal over the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunals and that this Court interference only when there is an error apparent on the face of the order. No such error has been pointed out. The writ petition, therefore, merits dismissal.
4. It was strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the termination of the services of an employee on account of absence amounts to misconduct a request was made to the Labour Court to allow the management to lead evidence before it to prove that the workman remained absent after 27-1-1993 but no such opportunity was granted. The grievance is that the management has denied an opportunity to prove misconduct alleged against the workman. There is no merit in this contention. In view of the finding of the Labour Court that the workman was not allowed to join duty with effect from 28-1-1993 and that he did not remain absent as alleged, the question of leading evidence to prove the absence of the workman did not arise and the Labour Court was right in not granting any such request. No fault can thus be found with the view taken by the Labour Court in this regard.
5. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. Petition dismissed.