JUDGMENT 1. - Labour Court Bharatpur vide award dated 26.04.1995 answered the reference in favour of respondent workman (for short 'workman') holding that retrenchment/termination of the workman was violative of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes Rules and workman was entitled to be reinstated in service. The appellant employer (for short 'employer') on one hand assailed the award of Labour Court by filing writ petition, the workman on the other hand filed writ petition seeking mandamus to implement the award. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 12.02.1997 decided both the writ petitions in favour of the workman. The employer in these appeals has impugned the orders of learned Single Judge and the Labour Court. 2. Mr. Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the employer canvassed that workman was a daily wager and did not work between 07.04.1992 to 11.04.1992. The question of considering the workman senior did not arise at all and provisions of Section 25G were not attracted. It was also urged that workman and Dau Dayal both were employed together and learned Single Judge and the Labour Court committed error in holding that workman was senior to Dau Dayal and reliance is placed on Regional Manager SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari 2006 LLR 209 , Surendra Nagar District Panchayat v. Dahya Bai 2005 LLR 1222 and Jaipur Development Authority v. Ram Sahi, (2006) 11 SCC 684 . 3. Having carefully scanned the impugned orders, we notice that all the contentions raised before us were analysed and considered in great details by the learned Single Bench in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. The scope of supervisory jurisdiction was explained by the Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2003) 1 SCR 567 : 2003 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 255 : (2003) 3 SCC 524 thus: The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior Court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate Court or the Tribunal. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision. 4. After vociferously criticised the impugned orders, learned counsel for the employer persuaded us to reweigh the evidence adduced before the Labour Court. It is difficult to subscribe the view canvassed by learned counsel for the employer. Since the scope of special Appeal is not akin to Regular First Appeal, disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated upon in Special Appeal. 5. We wee no good reason to interfere with the finding arrived at by learned Single Judge in its supervisory jurisdiction. 6. For these reasons these appeals fail and stand dismissed without any order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******