JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Respondent workman filed application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short `The Act') assailing his termination order dated January 30, 1987 on the ground that it was against the principles of natural justice since no domestic inquiry was conducted by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (appellant herein). The RSRTC sought permission to adduce evidence before the Industrial Tribunal to prove the misconduct of the workman. Having considered the evidence of both the parties, the Tribunal held that although termination of workman was valid, the workman was entitled to wages with effect from January 30, 1987 till the date of award passed by the Tribunal. Learned Single Judge also maintained the finding of Tribunal. Hence this appeal. 3. It is well settled that if no domestic inquiry in regard to misconduct of workman had been held by the management, the management is entitled to straightway adduce evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action. The Tribunal on the basis of evidence adduced before it may come to the conclusion that punishment imposed on the workman was justified. It is also permitted that the management even after holding domestic inquiry can adduce evidence before the Tribunal to justify the punishment order and in that situation of Tribunal finds that services of workman were rightly terminated, the termination order, in our opinion shall become effective with retrospective effect because the order of termination was passed in consonance with the principles of natural justice. But if termination order is passed without conducting domestic inquiry and evidence regarding misconduct of workman is adduced for the first time in Tribunal and Tribunal approves the termination order, it shall be effective prospectively i.e. from the date of award of the Tribunal, we thus find no illegality in the impugned order. 4. Even otherwise learned Single Bench examined the award of the Tribunal in its supervisory jurisdiction. Scope of supervisory jurisdiction is explained in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. 4. Even otherwise learned Single Bench examined the award of the Tribunal in its supervisory jurisdiction. Scope of supervisory jurisdiction is explained in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003(2) WLC (SC) Civil 255 : 2003(3) SCC 524 , thus : (Para 7) "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 with 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. 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." 5. For these reasons, we find no merit in the appeal and it accordingly stands dismissed without any order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******