A. K. BASU, J. ( 1 ) DESPITE service of notice, none appears for the opposite parties to contest this application. The affidavit of service filed today be kept with the record. ( 2 ) BY this application under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner Employees' State Insurance Corporation has challenged the order of the learned Judge, Employees' Insurance Court, West Bengal dated November 8, 2000 passed in connection with the Case No. 98/1996. ( 3 ) SHORN of unnecessary detail the relevant fact behind filing of the present application is that the respondent No. 1 was an employee under respondent No. 2 and that on April 22, 1995, that respondent No. 1 came to resume his duty after a gap of almost four years and at that point of time in spite of his producing fitness certificate, the incharge of the Department did not allow the said respondent to resume his duty and at that point of time, the said respondent had an accidental fall resulting in injury for which he subsequently claimed benefit as permissible under Employees State Insurance Scheme. ( 4 ) THE claim of respondent No. 1 was strongly opposed both by the present petitioner as well as by the respondent No. 2 but the learned Judge by his judgment impugned in this application, was of the view that the said respondent No. 1 met the accident in course of his employment within the meaning Section 2 (8) of the Act and hence, he allowed the benefit under the Act. ( 5 ) BEING arrived by and dissatisfied with the said finding and order of the learned Judge the present application has been preferred contending, inter alia, that findings of the learned Judge are totally based on perverse interpretation of both fact and evidence and on proper interpretation of the same, no reasonable man could have reached the conclusion and hence, interference of this Court is solicited in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution, ( 6 ) FRANKLY speaking on a question of disputed fact there is little scope for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution more so, in view of the established principle produced by the Apex Court defining the true scope and extent of Article 227. The Apex Court has held that unless there is dereliction of duty on the part of the subordinate Courts or the Tribunals or there is flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, the High Court shall not interfere while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution. Keeping in view the above legal principle let me examine whether there is any merit behind the allegation of the present petitioner which would require this Court to exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution. ( 7 ) IT is needless to say that to get a benefit under Employees State Insurance Scheme, the person concerned must prove to the heel that he suffered the injuries in course of employment and the Court while upholding the claim of such person must come to a conclusion depending on factum evidence placed before it that the accident took place when the person concerned was involved in the employment for which he was engaged by his employer. ( 8 ) NOW coming to the fact and evidence of this particular case which is available, from the written statement of respondent No. 2 as well as from the accident notice that it has been categorically asserted by the employer, that is, the respondent No. 2 that the respondent No. 1 had no connection with his employment at the relevant time when he met with the accident and in fact the said respondent No. 1 was out of employment for more than four years and on that particular date, he came in order to join his duty, which he was denied and it is also pertinent to mention that the said respondent No. 1 was a paralytic patient and before joining his duty he had the accidental fall. ( 9 ) IT appears from the impugned judgment that the learned Judge has directed himself totally in the matter of appreciation of evidence and he came to the conclusion that when the respondent No. 1 had a fitness certificate in his favour and when the accident took place within the factory premises the conclusion must be drawn that the said accident took place in connection with the discharge of duties by the respondent No. 1 while he was in employment. I am of clear view that this interpretation of the learned Judge on the basis of evidence placed before him, is totally perverse and uncalled for and hence, his order to allow the benefit, cannot be sustained either in fact and in law and hence, I am inclined to set aside the judgment and order. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, the present application is allowed without any order as to cost, and the judgment and order of the learned Judge, is hereby set aside.