JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---A full wing or a half wing on the uniform of Flight Engineers of Air India is the moot question in this writ petition filed at the instance of the Indian Flight Engineers Association. The demand of provision of full wing by the Flight Engineers on their uniform instead of half wing which is provided presently is based on the international practice in air lines over the world. The National Industrial Tribunal at Bombay on reference of the industrial dispute for adjudication by the appropriate Government under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has held the demand unjustified giving rise to the present writ petition. 2. Air India Ltd., the respondent No. 1 is the Indian international airline and is a company now registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Till recently it was a Corporation under Air Corporations Act but the Air Corporation Act has been repealed. The Indian Flight Engineers Association - the petitioner - is a trade union of flight engineers. The flight engineers employed by Air India are members of the petitioner union. Inter alia, the demands raised by the petitioner union were for a second flight engineer on long haul flights exceeding 9 hours that are operated with an additional commander and for provision of full wing on the uniform instead of half wing presently provided. The demand for second flight engineer on long haul operations exceeding 9 with an additional commander has been met by entering into a settlement and, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner on that count no longer survives. As regards the demand for provision of full wing on the uniform of flight engineers instead of half wing presently provided - the only question involved now in the writ petition - is based on the ground that provision of full wing on the uniform of the flight engineers is a standing international practice in the air lines all over the world. The demand is resisted by Air India on the ground that it had to keep the difference between the pilot and flight engineers and hence the uniform of flight engineers are provided with half wing. In the reference proceedings before the Tribunal, the petitioner union examined various witnesses namely, M/s.S. Krishnamoorthy, R.S. Tiwari, K.R. Pankajan, T.M. Chandran, P.N. Phadnis and Mr. In the reference proceedings before the Tribunal, the petitioner union examined various witnesses namely, M/s.S. Krishnamoorthy, R.S. Tiwari, K.R. Pankajan, T.M. Chandran, P.N. Phadnis and Mr. T.M. Chandran and also produced questionnaires and replies to the questionnaires given by Flight Engineers Associations all over the world and copies of the letters received from Great Britain, Holland, South Africa, Portugal, etc. Air India in its defence examined Captain K. Mohan and Mr. V.A. Ferreira. The Tribunal after hearing the parties on 27-7-1994 passed the impugned award and held that giving the Flight Engineers 3/4 wing would be appropriate and justified. 3. Assailing the award of the Tribunal on this aspect, Mr. Sanjay Sanghvi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner union urged that the petitioner union led sufficient evidence to establish the industrywise practice around the world about the provision of full wing on the uniform of flight engineers and the industrywise practice having been established, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the demand of the petitioner union for full wing on the uniform of Flight Engineers. He would urge that even if in single air line there is a practice of providing full wing on the uniform to the flight engineers, the industry practice ought to be held as established and in the present case, from the available evidence it was apparently clear that number of air lines around the globe have been providing full wing to the flight engineers as is provided to the pilots. To illustrate he cited the position prevailing in Singapore Airline, Hangerian Airline, KLM and some other airlines. He, therefore, submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal needs to be modified relating to this demand. 4. Mr. E.P. Bharucha, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Air India on the other hand supported the reasons given by the Tribunal where-by it held that the petitioner union has failed to establish industry practice of providing full wing on the uniform of the flight engineers as is provided to the pilots. Mr. Bharucha would submit that the flight engineers uniform cannot be identical to pilots and, therefore, the distinction drawn by the management to the flight engineers and pilots was justified. Mr. Bharucha would submit that the flight engineers uniform cannot be identical to pilots and, therefore, the distinction drawn by the management to the flight engineers and pilots was justified. He would also submit that on the basis of the evidence led by the petitioner union, it cannot be said that there was an established industry practice for providing full wing to the flight engineers on their uniforms. He would also urge that while exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction this Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal and it has only supervisory jurisdiction and this Court will not review the findings of facts reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal even if they were erroneous. In this connection, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in (Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and others v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale)1, 1960(1) Supreme Court Reports page 890 and (Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madras and others v. P.S. Rajagopal Naidu, Govindarajulu and others)2, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 992. 5. At the outset, I may observe that when the demand was raised by the petitioner union that the flight engineers were entitled to have full wing on their uniform instead of half wing presently provided, it was for the union to justify the said demand. In other words, the burden lay on the union that its demand for provision of full wing on the uniform of flight engineers instead of half wing was justified. This position is not even disputed by learned Counsel for petitioner and it is for this reason that the justification is sought to be established by the union on the basis of industry practice. It may also be observed that claim of full wing on the uniform of flight engineers is made because according to the union the pilots on their uniform are provided full wing. 6. The justification of the demand raised by the union based on the industry practice is necessarily required to be established on the basis of such industry in the country and not with reference to the air line industry outside the country or over the globe. It is true that the Air India is the sole international Air Line of the country but that would not mean that its employees could claim same service conditions governing such employees of the International Air Lines outside the country. Each country has different culture. It is true that the Air India is the sole international Air Line of the country but that would not mean that its employees could claim same service conditions governing such employees of the International Air Lines outside the country. Each country has different culture. Uniform of the employees of different international airlines cannot be compared nor made basis for provision for same uniform. How can and it is very difficult to comprehend that any practice prevailing in overseas air lines say for example. British Airlines or Delta Airlines or Singapore Airlines or Hungarian Airlines be made basis for justification of any demand for Air India an air line of our country. I am afraid the very basis of justification of demand was misplaced and misconceived. Industry practice of the industries in other countries cannot justify the basis of any demand by the union of any industry in the country and, therefore, apparently the very demand which was required to be justified by the union lacked the basis for justification. Even if it be assumed that since the demand related to an industry like Air India which is the only Indian International airline and such demand based on industry practice can be sought to be justified by relying upon the industry practice of other airlines over the globe, in my view, the evidence placed by the petitioner union is not sufficient to establish such industry practice over the globe on the basis of which the petitioner union can justify its demand. It would be seen that distinction has been drawn by various airlines between pilots and flight engineers regarding their uniform. For example, in Hungarian Airlines the engineers are provided full wings with two stripes on their arms whereas the pilots have three stripes. Similarly, it appears from the questionnaire addressed to the General Secretary, International Flight Engineers Association, England, that their flight engineers as part of their uniform wear the full wing but they have 5 cylinder engine while the pilots have three blade propellers on their uniform. Similarly, it appears from the questionnaire addressed to the General Secretary, International Flight Engineers Association, England, that their flight engineers as part of their uniform wear the full wing but they have 5 cylinder engine while the pilots have three blade propellers on their uniform. From the document of the Australian Airlines Flight Engineers Association it is revealed that the insigne worn by the flight engineers was a centre boss bearing the company trading insignia with a half wing extending to the left and worn above the left breast pocket but for pilots the wing is single and they have one jacket with wing extending from the centre boss with letter S. As regard K.L.M. it appears that the flight engineers wear the full wing as part of their uniform but the size of the wing is larger on the uniform worn by the pilots. The African Airways Engineers Association in their letter has stated that they wear a 3/4 wing as part of their uniform. The Singapore Airlines and Air Mauritius do appear to have uniforms for the flight engineers and pilots same having full wing as is reflected from evidence of Mr. Tiwari and Mr. Krishnamoorthy. However, from the aforesaid evidence which has been led by the petitioner union, it cannot be said definitely that there is uniform practice adopted globally amongst all air lines of the world that the flight engineers of air lines have full wing on their uniforms. Rather, it is apparent and clearly borne out from the available evidence that large number of airlines and rather majority of them around the world have distinct mark in the uniform of the flight engineers and the pilots. The Tribunal has considered this aspect in paragraphs 44, 45, 46 and 47 of the impugned award and in my view the reasoning being proper, no interference is called for in the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The judgments cited by Mr. The Tribunal has considered this aspect in paragraphs 44, 45, 46 and 47 of the impugned award and in my view the reasoning being proper, no interference is called for in the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The judgments cited by Mr. Bharucha are not required to be dealt with since the law is more than well settled that the power of superintendence exercised by this Court in extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory and its power of judicial review is confined to consider the manner in which the decision has been reached by the Tribunal or the Court or the authority below and not the correctness of its conclusions. Since the Air India is not aggrieved by the direction given by the Tribunal for provision of 3/4 wing on the uniform of Flight Engineers, the award passed by the Tribunal cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity calling for interference by this Court in extra ordinary jurisdiction. 7. The writ petition accordingly has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed. *****