JUDGMENT

KUILDIP SINGH, J. :- Sudhoo filed an appeal under Section 31(2) of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, (hereinafter called the Act) before the Prescribed Authority seeking his reinstatement in the service of M/s. Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works, Allahabad (hereinafter called the establishment). He stated before the Prescribed Authority that he was a permanent employee of the transport section of the establishment and after working continuously for 30 years his services were terminated on January 8, 1977 without any prior notice.

2. The establishment in its written statement before the competent authority took the stand that Sudhoo was never in their employment and as such the question of terminating his services did not arise.

3. Sudhoo produced Shaukat Ali and Shiv Murat two witnesses before the Prescribed Authority. On the other hand the establishment produced Saeed Mohd. Yunus Nagvi as their sole witness. The attendance and wage register was also produced before the authority.

4. On appreciation of evidence before it, the Prescribed Authority held as under:

"I have heard the arguments of the representatives of both the parties, their statements, documents and evidence available in this appeal and after considering the various, aspects of the case, I have come to the conclusion that the appellant Shri Sudhoo has been working for many years in the firm of the respondent, because the witness for the respondent has accepted in his evidence that Shri Sudhoo used to work on the vehicles of Firm Haji Lal and that he also used to work on the vehicles being run in the name of Shri Phiroj also. Besides these two, no third persons vehicles ever stood in the garage of the firm. The witness in his evidence has also stated that firm Haji Lal has no partner. Shri Firoj who is the son of the owner of the firm, used to work for the firm in regard to the Bank and the vehicles run in his name also used to carry goods of the firm, For all these reasons it is proved that Shri Sudhoo is the employee of the firm Haji Lal. The contention of the respondent that because Shri Sudhoo has himself not given evidence hence he is not an employee is baseless. Shri Sudhoo is in no condition to give evidence because due to his ,weak eyesight and deaf hearing he is able to see or hear with great difficulty. In my opinion if Shri Sudhoo had not been in such a condition he could have given evidence and would have been able to explain the reality in greater detail than his witnesses."

5. The Prescribed Authority directed the establishment to pay Sudhoo Rs. 6,840/- as arrears of pay from the date of termination of his services. The Authority further ordered that since Sudhoo was not physically fit to work he be paid Rs. 2,500/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

6. The establishment filed writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of the Competent Authority. The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dated January 18, 1980. This is Sudhoos appeal through special leave petition against the judgment of the High Court.

7. The High Court allowed the writ petition on the following two grounds:

(1) The finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority was based on no evidence.

(2) That no appeal was maintainable before the Prescribed Authority under Section 31(2)(a) of the Act.

8. We have gone through the statements of the two witnesses produced by the appellant before the authority. The findings of the authority are based on the appreciation of evidence produced by the parties before the authority. We do not agree with the High Court that the findings recorded by the authority are based on no evidence. The High Court should not have interfered with the findings of fact reached by the Prescribed Authority on appreciation of evidence.

9. To appreciate the second ground on which the High Court set aside the. order of the Competent Authority, we may examine the provisions of Section 31 of t