Certiorari jurisdiction over a perverse trainee finding justified reinstatement for unfair labour practice without back wages.

The Industrial Court's finding that the concerned persons were trainees was held perverse because it ignored material evidence, including admissions from the management witness and circumstances showing regular production work over a substantial period. On that basis, the High Court could lawfully intervene under Article 226/227 to correct patent illegality, reappraise whether the persons were workmen under the labour law framework, and set aside the award. The resulting direction of reinstatement rested on the conclusion that the termination amounted to unfair labour practice, while back wages were denied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, was justified in interfering with the Industrial Court's award and directing reinstatement of the concerned workers on the ground that they were workmen and not trainees.

Analysis: The Industrial Court's conclusion that the concerned persons were trainees was found to be based on a failure to consider material evidence, including the admissions of the Management's witness and the circumstances showing that the workers were engaged in regular production work for a substantial period. The finding was held to be perverse and to suffer from non-application of mind. In such circumstances, the High Court did not exceed the limits of certiorari jurisdiction by correcting the patent illegality in the award and reappreciating whether the persons were workmen within the meaning of the relevant labour law provisions.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in interfering with the award, holding the termination to amount to unfair labour practice, and directing reinstatement without back wages.

---