As per case facts, the respondent-workman's service was terminated on grounds of unsatisfactory work, with the appellant claiming he had not completed 240 days as required by statute. The Labour ... Court found this claim to be true, ruling the termination valid. However, the workman filed a Writ Petition, asserting miscalculation of working days and participation in a strike. The High Court, relying on a precedent and re-appreciating evidence, reversed the Labour Court's decision, concluding the workman had met the 240-day requirement and ordering reinstatement with back wages. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's intervention.The question arose as to whether the High Court, in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227, was justified in re-appreciating factual findings to determine if the workman had completed the statutory 240 days of service, especially when the Labour Court had made a definite finding on this fact.Finally, the Supreme Court clarified that the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and not appellate in nature, meant primarily for correcting errors of law or perverse findings, not for re-appreciating facts where two views are possible. It reiterated that the burden of proving 240 days of service lies with the employee, and an affidavit alone is insufficient evidence. The Court found that the High Court committed a manifest error by reversing the Labour Court's factual finding without establishing that the Labour Court's finding was perverse or unsupported by any material evidence. Thus, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the Labour Court's award, upholding that the workman had not fulfilled the 240-day continuous service requirement.