https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457178 The Supreme Court held that a High Court exercising Article 226 jurisdiction cannot act as an appellate court over a Labour Court award or reappreciate evidence on factual or jurisdictional questions where the tribunal is competent to decide them. The Labour Court's findings that the union had raised a demand and that the termination was illegal, mala fide, and a colourable exercise of power were therefore not open to such interference. Failure of conciliation and the Conciliation Officer's report were sufficient to support the Government's reference of the industrial dispute for adjudication. The High Court's reliance on another authority was misplaced, and the Labour Court's award was restored. en-us Thu, 25 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Sep 2024 11:17:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457178 The Supreme Court held that a High Court exercising Article 226 jurisdiction cannot act as an appellate court over a Labour Court award or reappreciate evidence on factual or jurisdictional questions where the tribunal is competent to decide them. The Labour Court's findings that the union had raised a demand and that the termination was illegal, mala fide, and a colourable exercise of power were therefore not open to such interference. Failure of conciliation and the Conciliation Officer's report were sufficient to support the Government's reference of the industrial dispute for adjudication. The High Court's reliance on another authority was misplaced, and the Labour Court's award was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 25 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457178