https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293876 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. en-us Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Mar 2021 12:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293876 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293876