JUDGMENT :

Kurian, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The limited question that arises in these cases is with regard to the back wages payable to the appellant. The Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay salary to the appellant for the period from March, 1996 to September, 1997 and December, 2001 to October, 2002.

3. The High Court took the view that the Muster Rolls do not indicate that the complainant was present for performing the duties. Though, the appellant attempted a review by producing numerous documents, the High Court refused to entertain the same.

4. Having regard to the fact that the documents were produced before the High Court, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in refusing to look into the same. Afterall, the Industrial Court had looked into the entire materials and had awarded the salary for the disputed period. Unless the approach is wholly perverse in the sense that the Tribunal acted on no evidence, the High Court under Article 226/227 is not justified in interfering with the award. It is not a court of first appeal to re-appreciate the evidence. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the impugned orders are