Article 227 supervisory review cannot reappreciate evidence where 240 days' service was not proved under industrial law.

Under Article 227, supervisory interference is confined to jurisdictional error, patent illegality, perversity, or manifest injustice, and does not allow reappreciation of evidence. The workman bore the burden of proving completion of 240 days' service in the preceding twelve months to claim relief under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court, on evidence, found that this requirement was not met and that the termination was not illegal. The High Court erred by reassessing the record and applying the "actually worked" principle under Section 25-B(2)(a)(ii) without cogent proof of 240 days' service, so its interference was unwarranted and the Labour Court's finding was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, could interfere with the Labour Court's finding that the workman had not completed 240 days of service and was therefore not entitled to relief under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: The scope of interference under Article 227 is limited to jurisdictional error, patent illegality, perversity, or manifest injustice, and does not permit reappreciation of evidence as if in appeal. The workman had the burden to prove completion of 240 days in the preceding twelve months. The Labour Court, on appreciation of evidence, found that the workman had not completed 240 days and that the termination was not illegal. The High Court reversed that finding by reassessing the evidence and applying the principle relating to "actually worked" under Section 25-B(2)(a)(ii), but the record did not disclose cogent evidence establishing completion of 240 days.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unwarranted. The finding of the Labour Court was restored and the challenge by the employer succeeded.

---