The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion under Art.226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the orders of the Labour Court, especially in cases where there is no violation of law but a breach of terms.

Jagannadha Rao, C.J.

These two Appeals arc directed against the common judgment dated 2-12-1992 of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.8348 of 1992 and 12063 of 1992, disposing of the Writ Petitions. The appellant before us is the Kerala Sovent Extractions Ltd. In the Writ Petitions, the appellant questioned the correctness of the awards passed by the Labour Court in favour of the respondents-workmen.

2. The workmen in question in the two Writ Petitions were employed by the appellant-company as badly headload works in go-downs. A notice was issued as per Ext.P1 stating that only those persons who had studied upto Vlllth standard or below should apply. The workmen, who applied for employment stating that they had passed VIIth standard did not specifically mention that they had passed S.S.L.C. It is only after their appointment that the appellant came to know that they had passed SSLC, and that there was a violation of the notification. The appointments were made in the year 1988, and the services of the workmen were sought to be terminated by the management in 1989 by Ext.P5 memo, and in fact the termination orders were passed. The workmen questioned the same, and sought for a reference to the Labour Court. The question referred to the Labour Court was as to whether the termination of service of the workmen was correct and whether they were entitled to back wages, if reinstated.

Gazette dated 19-5-1992 and 21-7-1992 setting aside the termination order without back wages, but with continuity of service. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the notification in question did not specifically State that persons who had educational qualification above Vlllth standard were disqualified or ineligible nor did it say any fraud was played by the workmen. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the Labour Court thought it fit to deny back wages, while ordering reinstatement. It also directed continuity of service.

4. When the above said awards were questioned by the appellant-company before a learned Single Judge of this Court, the learned' Single Judge came to the conclusion that the workmen had withheld the information from the company, and that they had violated the terms of the notice inviting applications. The learned Single Judge then considered the merits of the case and set aside the awards in para.7 of the judgment. However the learned judge observed in para.8 of the judgment that the case involved considerable hardship to the workmen, and that therefore as a special case and not by way of a precedent, the appellant-petitioner should not implement the dismissal order, and allow the workmen to continue in service, as directed by the Labour Court. The Writ Petitions were disposed of in the light of the observations. Aggrieved by the common judgment, these two Writ Appeals are preferred by the management.

5. After hearing counsel on both sides, we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge to this extent, namely, that the workmen did not place the relevant facts before the management pursuant to the advertisement. Had they placed the facts correctly before the management, they would not have secured the employment. Be that as it may, the workmen were appointed in 1988, and their services were terminated in 1989. After termination of their service, they had approached the Labour Court, which on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, thought it fit to direct reinstatement of the two workmen without back wages, but with continuity of service.

6. The point for consideration in these Writ Appeals is whether this Court should interfere with such an order in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

7. We may point out that in this case this Court is not called upon to pass orders on compassionate grounds in favour of the workmen for the fault committed on the part of the management. If that were the position, we would not have come forward to h