Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court

"The 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." Kerala High Court, in a judgment dated 25 September 2026, dismissed an Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, holding that the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction is not appellate in nature and cannot be invoked to reassess factual findings of a tribunal unless they are patently perverse.

A bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. emphasized that judicial superintendence is meant to ensure that tribunals act within the bounds of their authority, not to correct every perceived error in judgment.

The petitioners, a group of 106 individuals, were engaged as labourers in the District Agricultural Farm, Kottukkal. They sought recognition as casual labourers under the benefit of Clause (iii) of the Government Order dated 13 December 2017, which provided for the regularization/retention of daily wage labourers who had completed at least 30 days of service between 19 December 2008 and 1 December 2016. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal dismissed their claim, finding that they were "contract employees" appointed under a specific Janakeeyasoothranam project, and thus ineligible for the benefits meant for casual/daily wage workers.

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the Tribunal’s finding that the petitioners were contract employees—and not daily wage workers—warranted interference under the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction. The Court was further required to determine whether the Tribunal had committed a manifest error or acted in flagrant abuse of law by denying the petitioners the benefits of the Government Order.

Limited Scope of Article 227

The Court reiterated the settled legal position regarding its supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Relying on the Apex Court’s ruling in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, the bench noted that supervisory jurisdiction is administrative and judicial in nature, intended to maintain the orderly functioning of the justice delivery system. The Court affirmed that it cannot function as a court of appeal when examining orders of subordinate tribunals.

Correctional Jurisdiction Constraints

The bench observed that the power of superintendence is not a tool to "correct all errors of the judgment." Citing Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the Court stated that it should not act like a "bull in a china shop." Interference is strictly limited to cases of grave dereliction of duty, flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of justice, or where the Tribunal’s reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable.

Contractual Nature of Employment

Addressing the merits, the Court perused the records, including the minutes of the District Panchayat’s Standing Committee. The records confirmed that the petitioners’ engagement was part of a specific project funded under a different head of the District Panchayat. The Court held that the Tribunal’s conclusion regarding the contractual nature of the petitioners' service was based on cogent evidence and did not suffer from any illegality.

Benefits of Government Policy

The Court held that when the Government restricts the applicability of a policy benefit to a specific category (casual/daily wage labourers), the Court cannot extend it to contract employees without sufficient evidence. Because the petitioners failed to demonstrate that their engagement was outside the ambit of the contract project, the Tribunal was justified in denying the claim.

"The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction."

Finding no illegality, impropriety, or perversity in the impugned order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, the High Court dismissed the Original Petition. The judgment reaffirms the restrictive application of Article 227, reinforcing that tribunals must be the final arbiters of factual disputes in service matters unless there is a clear violation of basic legal principles.

Date of Decision: 25 September 2026