JUDGMENT : Y.B. Bhatt, J. The present petitioner (workman) challenges the award passed by the Labour Court, Navasari, in Reference (LCN) No. 340/89 whereby the Reference came to be rejected. In the first instance, I must note that the present petition is one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, where the jurisdiction of this Court is extremely limited and circumscribed by the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqin & Ors. AIR 1984 SC page 38. In the said decision, Supreme Court has said that "even error of law cannot be corrected". However, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has emphatically asserted that subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court have deviated from this view whereby examination of the evidence on record is permissible to ascertain the true facts as disclosed from such evidence, in a fit case and by way of an exception. 2. xxx xxx xxx. 3. xxx xxx xxx 4. I have examined the evidence on record, such as has been shown to me by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner with a view to enable him to substantiate his contentions. On the basis of examination of such evidence, it becomes apparent that the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court are in consonance with the evidence on record and such findings cannot, in any manner, be said to be perverse, nor can the appreciation - of evidence on the part of the Labour Court be called perverse. 5. It is a fact admitted during the deposition of the workman, with reference to Exh. 32/1, that the workman had obtained the relevant certificate (licence) from the Municipality for running the shoe shop in competition with the original employer. The workman has further admitted that the said certificate was applied for by himself and therefore bears his name. It is an admitted fact that, thereafter, the workman caused the certificate to be amended (vide Exh. 32/2) whereby his name was substituted by the name of his brother, Bharatkumar. The erasure and purpose for getting the licence amended has been made the subject-matter of extensive cross examination of the workman. It is an admitted fact that, thereafter, the workman caused the certificate to be amended (vide Exh. 32/2) whereby his name was substituted by the name of his brother, Bharatkumar. The erasure and purpose for getting the licence amended has been made the subject-matter of extensive cross examination of the workman. According to the Labour Court, the workman has, during the course of his deposition, admitted or conceded that the workman got his name deleted from the certificate and got the name of the brother inserted in order that his case (the Reference in question) should not be prejudiced. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that there is no warrant for the finding that there is any such admission on record. In this contest, I have been taken through the oral evidence of the workman by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, and I am satisfied that, on a total consideration of his deposition, whether there is a specific admission as noted by the Labour Court or not, is not the crux of the matter. On a total consideration of the workman's deposition, I am of the firm view that the object of carrying out the amendment in the name of the Licence in the certificate was along the lines suggested by the employer during the cross-examination of the workman. In other words, it cannot be doubted that the workman got his name deleted from the certificate and got the name of his brother inserted, in order that he could then (according to him) legitimately contend before the Labour Court that it was his brother's shop and not his. Even otherwise, suffice it to say that the Labour Court has not merely relied upon this admission, but has examined the entire conduct of the workman during the relevant period. 6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has also vehemently urged that there is no legal bar to a workman continuing in employment while at the same time running an independent business. No doubt, as a mere proposition of law, Ld. Counsel may not be faulted. However, this is not the issue. The controversy on the facts of the case, is that the workman voluntarily abandoned his employment and the reason for such abandonment was that he has started a competitive business as a proprietor. No doubt, as a mere proposition of law, Ld. Counsel may not be faulted. However, this is not the issue. The controversy on the facts of the case, is that the workman voluntarily abandoned his employment and the reason for such abandonment was that he has started a competitive business as a proprietor. It is this case of the employer which has been accepted by the Labour Court, as a finding of fact based on the relevant evidence on the record of the case. Even otherwise, I am of the opinion that the conclusion drawn by the Labour Court must be accepted to the effect that the workman had put in a number of years' service with the employer, gained adequate experience as a Salesman in his employer's shoe shop and had been emboldened by such experience, had decided to set up the competitive business. Once it is found and recorded as a finding of fact that the workman had started a competitive shoe shop, and had also personally invited his former employer to attend the inauguration, this lends great credence and support to the employer's case that the workman had abandoned his employment. The crux of the matter, here, is not the willingness of the workman to resume duty or to continue in employment in spite of his starting a competitive business but what really matters is whether the defence put up by the employer is credible and believable on the basis of the evidence on record. On a detailed perusal of such evidence on record, I am satisfied that the approach of the Labour Court cannot be faulted, neither can its appreciation of evidence nor the conclusions drawn therefrom. 7. xxx xxx xxx. 8. xxx xxx xxx. Petition dismissed.