https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188682 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. en-us Tue, 29 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Dec 2016 16:49:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188682 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188682