emphatically argued that the Labour Court committed no error apparent on the face of record while making the award dated 18th September, 1996, impugned in the present writ application, and therefore, the impugned award, calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of the powers under writ jurisdiction. The learned counsel further submits that the Labour Court in view the pleadings of the parties and after appreciation of the evidence brought on record, recorded the finding that termination of the respondent/workman was in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947', for short) The learned counsel for the respondent/workman further pointed out that the defence of the petitioner/Corporation to the effect that the respondent/workman was engaged for a specific period, was found to be absolutely baseless and contrary to the materials available on record. So also the learned Labour Court rightly declined the request of the petitioner/Corporation for compensation in lieu of reinstatement of the respondent/workman. Moreover, the respondent/workman has been reinstated by the petitioner/ Corporation on 1st January, 1997. The learned counsel further pointed out that this Court while entertaining the writ application granted stay, on the stay application, only to the extent of payment of back wages vide order dated 3rd July, 1998. The learned counsel insisted that once the action of the petitioner/Corporation was held to be violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947, the Labour
