High Court's Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 precludes re-appreciation of evidence or fact-finding as an Appellate Court.

The appellant-workman, a Security Supervisor with over 24 years of service, was informed in 1987 that he was deemed to have resigned due to unauthorized absence.

The workman claimed he was suffering from jaundice and had submitted medical certificates, while the Management contended he failed to resume duty despite notices and was a supervisor exempt from the Industrial Disputes Act.

The Labour Court found the termination unlawful and awarded 50% back wages, noting the workman had since reached superannuation.

A Single Judge of the High Court later set aside this award, prompting the present appeal.

1. Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in re-appreciating evidence and reversing the findings of the Labour Court under Article 227.

2. Whether the workman’s absence constituted a "deemed resignation" or an illegal termination.

3. Whether the workman fell under the definition of a "workman" or was discharging supervisory duties.

The court applied the settled principles of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which limits the High Court to supervisory jurisdiction rather than acting as an appellate court of facts.

It relied on the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act, specifically Section 17B regarding the payment of last drawn wages during the pendency of proceedings in higher courts.

Additionally, the court applied the legal principle that mere job nomenclature (e.g., "Supervisor") does not determine status; rather, the actual nature of duties performed is the deciding factor.

The court reasoned that the Single Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by "microscopically" re-appreciating evidence instead of merely reviewing the legality of the lower court’s process.

The Bench noted that the Labour Court had already recorded a factual finding that the workman provided medical proof via post, which invalidated the "deemed resignation" theory.

On the issue of supervisory status, the court found the Management failed to produce concrete evidence of the workman's duties; drawing a higher salary or occasionally granting leave to others did not automatically classify him as a supervisor under the ID Act.

The court found the delay in raising the dispute was justified as the workman was engaged in lengthy conciliation proceedings.

The workman is entitled to 50% back wages from the date of termination (1987) until the initiation of legal proceedings in 1996, and 100% wages from 1996 until his superannuation in 2001, as the Management had failed to reinstate him or pay wages under Section 17B during that period.