Bhattacharjee, C.J:— Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent perused the judgments of the Industrial Court and also the Labour Court. The Industrial Court was moved against the judgment of the Labour Court under S. 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The provisions of S. 44 are almost in pari materia with the provisions of Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. This is not so much a revisional jurisdiction, but jurisdiction of superintendence. It has been settled for about four decades that in exercise of this jurisdiction of superintendence and supervision, the Court cannot go to appreciate or re-appreciate the materials on record. It may be that in a given case or cases, we have, in our anxiety to do justice, have done so on occasions. But that is a different matter.
2. After hearing the strenuous arguments of Sri Sawant for respondents 1 and 2, we have not been able to persuade ourselves to agree that in exercise of limited jurisdiction under S. 44 of the said Act, the Industrial Court can re-appreciate evidence and overturn findings of fact, however, erroneous those findings may be.
3. It is apparent from the judgment of the Industrial Court that it has overturned the judgment of the Labour Court on findings of facts based on re-appreciation of evidence. This, we do not think to be permissible to any Court having such circumscribed jurisdiction. We must accordingly hold that the Industrial Court was wrong in exercising such jurisdiction and overturning the findings and decision of the Labour Court. We accordingly set aside the order of the Industrial Court and confirm the decision of the Labour Court. Accordingly, appeal is allowed, but without any order as to costs.
4. Issuance of certified copy of this order is expedited.