https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280896 Under Article 226, certiorari is supervisory and not appellate, so the High Court could not reappreciate evidence or disturb the Industrial Tribunal's findings on mala fides and the absence of a genuine reorganisation unless they were perverse or unsupported by evidence. Those findings were upheld as evidence-based. The retrenchment challenge also succeeded because the employer did not follow the mandatory retrenchment safeguards in respect of several workmen, including the principle of last come first go and the statutory requirements under Sections 25(F)(c) and 25(G). Managerial discretion over reorganisation did not dispense with compliance with these mandatory procedures. en-us Wed, 23 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jul 2025 18:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280896 Under Article 226, certiorari is supervisory and not appellate, so the High Court could not reappreciate evidence or disturb the Industrial Tribunal's findings on mala fides and the absence of a genuine reorganisation unless they were perverse or unsupported by evidence. Those findings were upheld as evidence-based. The retrenchment challenge also succeeded because the employer did not follow the mandatory retrenchment safeguards in respect of several workmen, including the principle of last come first go and the statutory requirements under Sections 25(F)(c) and 25(G). Managerial discretion over reorganisation did not dispense with compliance with these mandatory procedures. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 23 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280896