JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal,J.: - 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The writ petition is directed against the award dated 01.07.1999 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Lucknow in Adjudication Case No. 43 of 1996. 3. By notification dated29.08.1990 the State Government in purported exercise of power conferred under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1947") has made following reference for adjudication by Labour Court, Lucknow: "Kya Sewayojako Dwara Shramik Sri Ram Bahadur Singh Ki Sewayen Dinank 30.6.95 Se Samapt Kiya Jana Anuchit Evam Avaidhanik Hai, Yadi Ha To Sambandhit Shramik Kya Hitlabh Pane Ka Adhikari Hai Tatha Uske Deyo Ke Vivran Kya Hai?" 4. One of the preliminary issue formulated by Labour Court is, whether the disciplinary inquiry conducted against workman was just, valid and in accordance with law, giving due opportunity of hearing to workman concerned and finding in respect of this issue has been recorded against workman. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the fact that proceedings dated 03.01.1995 was not supplied to petitioner and he was not given opportunity to examine the witnesses. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the fact that proceedings dated 03.01.1995 was not supplied to petitioner and he was not given opportunity to examine the witnesses. This aspect has been considered by Labour Court and detailed on page 23, 24 and 25 of the paper book, which reads as under: oknh Jfed dh O;fDrxr lquokbZ ds fy, tkap vf/kdkjh ls 11-1-1995 fu/kkZfjr dh Fkh ijUrq oknh Jfed us izn'kZ MCyw &9 fnukad 10-1-95 dks fnukad 3-1-95 dk tkap lEcU/kh dk;Zo`Rr dh izfrfyfi ekaxh vkSj blds u feyus ij tkap esa Hkkx ysus es vleFkZrk O;Dr dh FkhA fn0 11-1-95 dks oknh Jfed O;fDrxr lquokbZ ds fy, gkftj ugha gqvkA Jfed i{k exa ;g Hkh rdZ fn;k fd oknh fnukad 3-1-1995 dks viuk c;ku ugha nsus fn;k x;k vkSj mls 3-1-95 dh tkaph dk;Zo`Rr Hkh ugha fn;k x;k rFkk mldh O;fDrxr lquokbZz ugh dh xbZ i=koyh ds voyksdu ls Li'V gS fd oknh Jfed us vkjksi i= ds laca/k esa tks viuk mRrj fnukad 23-11-94 Hkstk Fkk ftlus mlesa ,e0,0 [kksj] bZ0Mh0ih0 vkQhlj rFkk Jh vkj0,e0 'kekZ ds c;ku djkus dh ckr dh Fkh mlus bl i= esa Lo;a djus dks xokg ds : i esa izLrqr djus dh ckr ugh fy[khA dEiuh dh vksj ls Jh ,e0,0 [ksj dk c;ku djk;k x;k ftlesa oknh Jfed dks ftjg djus dk volj feyk vkSj oknh Jfed vkj0,u0 'kekZ dks xokg ds : i esa izLrqr fd;k mldk c;ku tkap vf/kdkjh ds le{k gqvk FkkA fnukad 23-1-95 dks oknh Jfed us Lo;a dks viuh xokgh djkus ds fy, dksbZ izkFkZuk i= tkap vf/kdkjh dks ugha fn;k Fkk vkSj u gh okn es i{kkas esa Hkh mlus bl okn dk voyksdu fd;k fd tkap vf/kdkjh us mls viuh xokgh nsus ls oafpr j[kkA vius i= fnukad 18-1-95 izn'kZ MCyw&9 es oknh Jfed us ;g ugh dgk fd fnukad 3-1-95 dk mldks xokgh nsus ls oafpr fd;k x;kA blh izdkj dkj.k crkvks uksfVl ds mRrj fnukad 26-4-95 esa Hkh oknh Jfed us bl ckr dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha fd;k fd mldh xokgh nsus ls tkap vf/kdkjh us oafpr fd;k x;k mlus bl ckr dk Hkh mYys[k ugha fd;k fd mls O;fDrxr lquokbz ls tkucw>dj oafpr j[kk x;k] ,slh n'kk esa oknh Jfed dk i= vkjksi fd mls viuk c;ku ,oa lQkbZ nsus ls oafpr fd;k x;k] feF;k ,oa fujk/kkj fl) gks tkrk gS tgka rd fnukad 3-1-95 dh tkap ds dk;qZDr dk iz'u gS lsok;kstd dEiuh dh vksj ls mldh izfrfyfi bl U;k;ky; eas nkf[ky dh xbZ gS ftlls Li'V gS fd ml fnu Jh ,e0,0 [ksj vkSj vkj0,u0 'kekZ dk c;ku ntZ fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj Jh [ksj ls oknh Jfed us ftjg Hkh dh Fkh mDr xokgks ds c;ku oknh Jfed dh mifLFkfr es gq, gS vr% ml fnu gqbZ dk;Zokgh dh tkudkjh oknh Jfed dks O;fDrxr : i ls Fkh] vr% mlds dk;ZeqDr dh izfrfuf/k u nsus ls oknh Jfed dks D;k gqbZ bldks oknh Jfed us Li'V ugha fd;k vksj u gh vius izkFkZukk i= fnukad 10-1-95 eas bl fo'k; esa dksbZ izdk'k MkykA ,slh n'kk esa fnukad 3-1-95 ds dk;Zo`Rr dh izfrfyfi u nsus ek= gS ?kjsyw tkap dh dk;Zokgh dks nks'kiw.kZ ugha ekuk tk ldrkA Inquiry Officer had fixed 11.01.1995 for the personal hearing of the complainant but on 10.01.1995 complainant-labour demanded for the copy of minutes relating to inquiry dated 03.01.1995 vide Ext W-9 and expressed his incapability to take part in inquiry on not receiving the same. On 11.01.1995 complainant labour didn't appear for personal hearing. Labour side also contended that complainant was not allowed to give his statement on 03.01.95 and he was also not provided with the minutes of 03.01.95 and his personal hearing was not done. It is clear from the perusal of the file that in the reply which had been sent by the complainant labour on 23.11.94 in response to the charge-sheet, in which he contended to get examined M.A. Kher, E.D.P. Officer and Shri R.M. Sharma, he did not contend to present himself as witness. Shri M.A. Kher was examined from the side of the company and complainant labour was given opportunity to cross-examine and complainant labour produced R.N. Sharma as witness, his statement was recorded before the Inquiry Officer. On 23.01.95, complainant labour neither had given any application to the Inquiry Officer for getting himself examined nor he raised the issue that he was deprived from giving statement by the Inquiry Officer in the suit. In his letter dated 18.01.95, i.e. Ext W-9, complainant labour had not stated that he had been deprived from giving statement on 03.01.1995. In the same manner, in reply dated 26.04.95 to the show-cause notice, complainant labour did not mention the fact that he had been deprived from giving his statement by Inquiry Officer and he had also not mentioned the fact that he had been deprived from personal hearing deliberately. In such situation the letter of complainant labour having allegation therein that he had been deprived from giving statement and defence, proves false and baseless as far as minutes of 03.01.1995 are concerned, copy of that is filed by the employer company in this court which makes it clear that on the said date, statements of Shri M.A. Kher and R.N. Sharma had been recorded and Shri Kher was also cross-examined by the complainant labour. The statements of aforesaid witnesses are recorded in the presence of complainant labour. Therefore complainant labour personally had the knowledge of the proceedings of that day, hence what was the loss caused to the complainant due to non-receipt of the copy of the minutes, neither complainant labour had explained the same nor any light was thrown on the said issue by him in his application dated 10.01.95. In such situation not providing the copy of minutes of 03.01.1995 is a mere . . . In such situation not providing the copy of minutes of 03.01.1995 is a mere . . . (irregularity) and because of it local inquiry shall not stand vitiated. (English translation by the Court) 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any perversity or otherwise illegality in the above findings. These are findings of fact and in absence of any error apparent on the face of record no interference under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is called for since the scope of judicial review in such matters are extremely limited and restricted. This power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But this power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. 7. In D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. Mukherjee 1953 SC 58 the Court said: "Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention, it is not for the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere." 8. A Constitution Bench of Apex Court examined the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution in Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another AIR 1954 SC 215 and made following observations at p. 571 : "This power of superintendence conferred by article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J. in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee AIR 1951 Cal. 193 , to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors". 9. In Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 38 the Court held that this Court has very limited scope under Article 227 of the Constitution and even the errors of law cannot be corrected in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution. 9. In Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 38 the Court held that this Court has very limited scope under Article 227 of the Constitution and even the errors of law cannot be corrected in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution. The power can be used sparingly when it comes to the conclusion that the Authority/Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or proceeded under erroneous presumption of jurisdiction. The High Court cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decision. For interference, there must be a case of flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or where order of the Tribunal, etc. has resulted in grave injustice. 10. For interference under Article 227 , the finding of facts recorded by the Authority should be found to be perverse or patently erroneous and de hors the factual and legal position on record. (See: Nibaran Chandra Bag Vs. Mahendra Nath Ghughu, AIR 1963 SC 1895 ; Rukmanand Bairoliya Vs. the State of Bihar & ors., AIR 1971 SC 746 ; Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha & ors., AIR 1980 SC 1896 ; Laxmikant R. Bhojwani Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Singh Pardeshi, (1995) 6 SCC 576 ; Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Pravinbhai Jasbhai Patel & ors., (1997) 7 SCC 300 ; M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sub-Judicial Magistrate & ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749 ; and Virendra Kashinath Ravat & ors. Vs. Vinayak N. Joshi & ors. (1999) 1 SCC 47 ). 11. It is well settled that power under Article 227 is of the judicial superintendence which cannot be used to up-set conclusions of facts, howsoever erroneous those may be, unless such conclusions are so perverse or so unreasonable that no Court could ever have reached them. (See: Rena Drego Vs. Lalchand Soni & ors., (1998) 3 SCC 341 ; Chandra Bhushan Vs. Beni Prasad & ors., (1999) 1 SCC 70 ; Savitrabai Bhausaheb Kevate & ors. Vs. Raichand Dhanraj Lunja, (1999) 2 SCC 171 ; and Savita Chemical (P) Ltd. Vs. Dyes & Chemical Workers' Union & Anr., (1999) 2 SCC 143 ). 12. Power under Article 227 of the Constitution is not in the nature of power of appellate authority enabling re-appreciation of evidence. Vs. Raichand Dhanraj Lunja, (1999) 2 SCC 171 ; and Savita Chemical (P) Ltd. Vs. Dyes & Chemical Workers' Union & Anr., (1999) 2 SCC 143 ). 12. Power under Article 227 of the Constitution is not in the nature of power of appellate authority enabling re-appreciation of evidence. It should not alter the conclusion reached by the Competent Statutory Authority merely on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. (See: Union of India & ors. Vs. Himmat Singh Chahar, (1999) 4 SCC 521 ). 13. In Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-opeative Marketing cum Processing Service Society Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 82 , the Court has held that there is no justification for the High Court to substitute its view for the opinion of the Authorities/ Courts below as the same is not permissible in proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. 14. In Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri Vs. Bhaskar Balwant Aheer, AIR 2000 SC 931 , the Court said that jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is not appealable but supervisory. Therefore, it cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by Courts below unless there is no evidence to support findings or the findings are totally perverse. 15. In Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers' Union (2000) 4 SCC 245 , the Court observed that it is impermissible for the Writ Court to reappreciate evidence liberally and drawing conclusions on its own on pure questions of fact for the reason that it is not exercising appellate jurisdiction over the awards passed by Tribunal. The findings of fact recorded by the fact finding authority duly constituted for the purpose ordinarily should be considered to have become final. The same cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion of Writ Court to warrant those findings. At any rate, as long as they are based upon some material which are relevant for the purpose no interference is called for. Even on the ground that there is yet another view which can reasonably and possibly be taken the High Court can not interfere. 16. In Union of India Vs. At any rate, as long as they are based upon some material which are relevant for the purpose no interference is called for. Even on the ground that there is yet another view which can reasonably and possibly be taken the High Court can not interfere. 16. In Union of India Vs. Rajendra Prabhu, (2001) 4 SCC 472 , the Court observed that the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, cannot re-appreciate the evidence nor it can substitute its subjective opinion in place of the findings of Authorities below. 17. Similar view has been reiterated in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind & ors., (2001) 1 SCC 4 ; Extrella Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97 ; and Omeph Mathai & ors. Vs. M. Abdul Khader, (2002) 1 SCC 319 . 18. In Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others (2003) 6 SCC 675 , it was held that in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 , High Court can correct errors of jurisdiction committed by subordinate Courts. It also held that when subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned, the Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. However, it also said that be it a writ of certiorari or exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or law unless error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law; or, a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. 19. In Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2006 ) 8 SCC 294, the Court said: "...while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution, it is provided that the High Court would exercise such powers most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. The power of superintendence exercised over the subordinate courts and tribunals does not imply that the High Court can intervene in the judicial functions of the lower judiciary. The power of superintendence exercised over the subordinate courts and tribunals does not imply that the High Court can intervene in the judicial functions of the lower judiciary. The independence of the subordinate courts in the discharge of their judicial functions is of paramount importance, just as the independence of the superior courts in the discharge of their judicial functions." 20. In Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 , the Court said that power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court. The above authority has been cited and followed in Kokkanda B. Poondacha and others Vs. K.D. Ganapathi and another AIR 2011 SC 1353 and Bandaru Satyanarayana Vs. Imandi Anasuya (2011) 12 SCC 650. 21. In Abdul Razak (D) through Lrs. & others Vs. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and others (2010) 2 SCC 432 , Court reminded that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227, High Courts should not act as if they are exercising an appellate jurisdiction. 22. In T.G.N. Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and others (2011) 2 SCC 772 , the Court said that power of superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is both administrative and judicial, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. 23. In Commandant, 22nd Battalion, CRPF and others Vs. Surinder Kumar (2011) 10 SCC 244 , Apex Court referring to its earlier decision in Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma (2001) 9 SCC 592 observed that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Articles 226 or 227. 24. In view thereof, I find no justification warranting interference with the award impugned in this writ petition. 25. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.