https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173371 Supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 136 should ordinarily not be used to disturb a labour tribunal's fact-based preliminary finding when it is supported by relevant evidence and goes to the core dispute. Where the Labour Court examined oral and documentary material and found that the employee mainly performed clerical duties and was therefore a workman, the High Court should not reappreciate facts and interfere at that stage without a proper basis for perversity. The Labour Court's finding was restored, and the interference was held unjustified. en-us Wed, 14 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Mar 2018 15:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173371 Supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 136 should ordinarily not be used to disturb a labour tribunal's fact-based preliminary finding when it is supported by relevant evidence and goes to the core dispute. Where the Labour Court examined oral and documentary material and found that the employee mainly performed clerical duties and was therefore a workman, the High Court should not reappreciate facts and interfere at that stage without a proper basis for perversity. The Labour Court's finding was restored, and the interference was held unjustified. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 14 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173371