Where, however, the facts are determined by the Court of Appeals and set out in the opinion, and that court misapplies the law to the facts so determined and set out, it is the duty of this court in its supervisory capacity to correct such erroneous conclusions.' (Emphasis supplied)        See also Lifes&s Cas. Ins. Co. v. Womack, 228 Ala. 70, 151 So. 880 (1934); Green v. Department of Indus. Rel., 263 Ala. 564, 83 So.2d 364 (1955).        With sufficient facts appearing in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in this case to make a determination of whether a jury issue was presented, this court has the right and duty to evaluate such facts in a favorable light for the plaintiff.

The question before us, then, is whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied the law to the facts as stated in its opinion. Avondale Mills v. Burnett, 268 Ala. 82, 106 So.2d 885; Greene v. Department of Industrial Relations, 263 Ala. 564, 83 So.2d 364; Department of Industrial Relations v. Haynes, 259 Ala. 238, 67 So.2d 62; Ex parte Alabama Textile Products Corporation, 242 Ala. 609(9), 7 So.2d 303, 141 A.L.R. 87. We see no need to repeat here the facts stated in the Court of Appeals' opinion.

Dept. of Industrial Relations v. Savage, 38 Ala. App. 277, 82 So.2d 435; Usher v. Dept. of Industrial Relations, 37 Ala. App. 698, 75 So.2d 159; Id., 261 Ala. 509, 75 So.2d 165. On certiorari this Court will not review Court of Appeals with reference to matters of fact upon the basis of which it rendered its decision. Greene v. Dept. of Industrial Relations, 263 Ala. 564, 83 So.2d 364; Ex parte Pesnell, supra. GOODWYN, Justice.

The question, therefore, is up for proper review by this Court. Greene v. Department of Indus. Rel., 263 Ala. 564, 83 So.2d 364; Ex parte Alabama Textile Products Corp., 242 Ala. 609, 7 So.2d 303, 141 A.L.R. 87; Department of Indus. Rel. v. Haynes, 259 Ala. 238, 67 So.2d 62. The question is whether Burnett, an employee of appellant Mills, is entitled to his unemployment compensation after leaving the employment of appellant.

The fundamental theory of unemployment compensation in connection with the above-quoted subsections of the statute is that workers are not entitled to compensation where their unemployment was directly due to a "labor dispute" still in active progress in the establishment where last employed, but that when the strike shall have been ended if his unemployment so resulted he would be entitled to unemployment compensation if thereafter, without his fault, he should be rendered unemployed. The rationale of Johns was applied in Greene v. Department of Industrial Relations, 38 Ala. App. 199, 83 So.2d 360, cert. den., 263 Ala. 564, 83 So.2d 364 (1955). In Greene, a company employer replaced striking workers, and after termination of the strike an employee failed to show up for work.

However, we are of the opinion that the lower court erroneously construed the law as applied to the facts before it. Thus, the rule relied on by Baptist Hospital is inapplicable to the present case. Greene v. Department of Industrial Relations, 38 Ala. App. 199, 83 So.2d 360, cert. den. 263 Ala. 564, 83 So.2d 364 (1955). The decision of the circuit court to deny Dudley's claim for unemployment compensation was apparently premised on two grounds and the validity of these grounds provides the issues before us on this appeal. Briefly stated, Dudley's claim for unemployment compensation was rejected because (1) the court did not deem him an "employee" under Title 25, chapter 4, section 7, Code of Alabama 1975 (formerly Title 26, section 184, Code of Alabama 1940); and (2) the court found that Dudley had voluntarily left his employment at Baptist Hospital. Title 25, chapter 4, section 78 (2), Code of Alabama 1975 (formerly Title 26, section 214 subd. B, Code of Alabama 1940).

We are of the opinion that the facts and circumstances shown here were sufficient to sustain the judgment of the circuit court awarding claimant compensation, and that the motion for new trial was overruled without error. In Greene v. Department of Industrial Relations, 38 Ala. App. 199, 83 So.2d 360, certiorari denied 263 Ala. 564, 83 So.2d 364, we said that where the question as to whether claimant has met the burden imposed upon him to show his availability for work was not raised or passed upon by the trial court it will not be considered here. The judgment entry recites: "* *, this cause is entered upon and tried this date on the following defenses interposed by the Department of Industrial Relations: (1) That the employee voluntarily left his work without good cause connected therewith, and the evidence being heard and considered, the court finds the issues in favor of the employee, George Burnett, for twenty (20) weeks of unemployment compensation at the rate of $20.00 per week or a total of $400.00, and judgment is hereby rendered accordingly."