IMPORTANT POINT
The proof of working of 240 days is stated to be on the employee and if employee himself stated that he worked for less than 240 days High Court committed a manifest error in reversing order of the Labour Court on that count in writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Banerjee, J.-Leave granted.

2. Generally speaking, exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited and restrictive in nature. It is so exercised in the normal circumstances for want of jurisdiction, errors of law, perverse findings and gross violation of natural justice, to name a few. It is merely a revisional jurisdiction and does not confer an unlimited authority or prerogative to correct all orders or even wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Courts below. The finding of fact being within the domain of the inferior Tribunal, except where it is a perverse recording thereof or not based on any material whatsoever resulting in manifest injustice, interference under the Article is not called for:

3. The observations above however, find affirmance in the decision of this Court in Nibaran Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu (AIR 1963 SC 1895). In Nibaran (supra) this Court has been rather categorical in recording that the jurisdiction so conferred is by no means appellate in nature for correcting errors in the decision of the subordinate Courts or Tribunals but is merely a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority. More recently, in Mani Nariman Daruwala and Bharucha (deceased) through LRs & Ors. v. Phiroz N. Bhatena & Ors. (AIR 1991 SC 1494), this Court in the similar vein stated :

"In the exercise of this jurisdiction the High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of fact of an inferior Court or tribunal if there was no evidence to justify such a conclusion and if no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the Court or tribunal who has come or in other words it is a finding which was perverse in law. Except to the limited extent indicated above the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact."

4. Needless to record that there is total unanimity of judicial precedents on the score that error must be that of law and patently on record committed by the inferior Tribunal so as to warrant intervention - it ought not to act as a Court of appeal and there is no dissention or even a contra note being sounded at any point of time till date. Incidentally, the illegality, if there be any, in an order of an inferior Tribunal, it would however be a plain exercise of jurisdiction under the Article to correct the same as otherwise the law Courts would fail to subserve the needs of the society since illegality cannot even be countenanced under any circumstances.

5. In this context reference may also be made to a still later decision of this Court in the case of Savita Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. Dyes & Chemical Workers Union & Anr. (1999 (2) SCC 143), wherein this Court in paragraph 19 of the Report observed :

".......... Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court could not have set aside any finding reached by the lower authorities where two views were possible and unless those findings were found to be patently bad and suffering from clear errors of law. ........"

6. Adverting however, to the factual score at this juncture, it appears that the Respondent-workman joined the services of the Appellant as a helper on 1st July, 1990 and continued till 26th February, 1991. The service was terminated however, on the ground that in his short stay with the Appellant his work was not found to be of desired standard. The Appellant did not feel it expedient, however, to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F by reason of non-completion of 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months. As a matter of fact it has been the contention of the Appellant at all stages that the Respondent-workman worked for a total period of 219 days in totality within the preceding 12 months period thereby falling short of statutory requirements noticed above.

7. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the Appeal, however, incidentally contended that the calculation o