!""#$%$&'()* ! "#$ %&# +' ,-+. ./. ' () $#!* ($+,- $#!* & (.#+ $/ )0 1111 /. 0 - 2&+&3 4##$*45# 6 7#-.8. &.#$+# ##9$:;&#30&# 7&4##*that the petitioner was appointed as Mali- cum-Chowkidar on 01.07.1995 and his services were illegally terminated on 28.08.1997. The Industrial Tribunal, vide award dated 12.01.2006, held the termination to be illegal and awarded compensation of ₹50,000/- with a direction for consideration of his re-employment against any future vacancy. The said award was set aside by this Court vide judgment dated 28.04.2008, holding that there was infact no violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so as to warrant the grant of relief to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a dispute under Section 25-H of the Act RITIKA 2026.08.12 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh upon learning that the respondent no.1-Department had engaged several persons on term appointments after his retrenchment without offering him an opportunity for re-employment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal, vide award dated 04.03.2020, wrongly declined the reference on the ground that the earlier award directing consideration for re- employment had been set aside. It is contended that the authorities failed to appreciate that a workman’s right for re-employment after retrenchment flows from Section 25-H of the ID Act and thus, the same is a substantive right independent of the observation made in the previous award. Therefore the setting aside of previous award does not take away his right to re- employment in terms of Section 25-H, which the respondent department had violated in his case. Accordingly, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. 9 <#*4 &4&4*#4*& + =#. !" &#30 )*4#).# # $% %$%&'( !)*+ ( , -.& &#30%=). && * 4#"*43&.# $+#+44##*44 * 5. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the judicial record with their able assistance. RITIKA 2026.08.12 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh / 6. The learned Tribunal, while passing the impugned award, duly considered the pleadings and evidence on record and recorded the finding that the claim of the petitioner was not sustainable. After noting that the petitioner had not diclosed the factum of setting aside of the earlier award by this Court, whereby it was held that there was no violation of the provision of Section 25-F of the Act, while raising the claim under Section 25-H. Be that as it may, it was concluded by the Tribunal that there was no material on record to show that the petitioner had ever offered himself for re- employment. Since the Department had made appointments through public advertisements and the petitioner had not applied for the same, the learned Tribunal rightly found no violation of Section 25-H of the Act and dismissed the claim. 7. It is well settled that this Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India over awards of Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals, does not sit in appeal over findings of fact, nor does it re-appreciate the evidence to test whether a different view was possible; interference is warranted only where a finding is shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner, despite his able assistance, has been unable to point out any such infirmity in the impugned Award. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on a fair appreciation of the evidence on record and call for no interference. ; 7!+ 3! #+ &#30## RITIKA 2026.08.12 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 0 9. Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. /. 121%!(0* RITIKA 2026.08.12 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh