Indian Press Private Limited v. Ram Autar — 1988 DIGILAW 301 (ALL)

JUDGMENT A.N. Dikshita, J. - By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of cert;orari for quashing the award dated 19.12.72 given in Adjudication Case No. 201 of 1972 issued under Notification No. 8722 dated 17.1.74 and published in Gazette dated 2.3.74 holding that the retrenchment of Ram Autar respondent No. 1 is illegal and invalid. 2. Facts in a narrow compass are that the petitioner, a company registered under Companies Act carries its business of printers having their painting establishment at Allahabad. Respondent No. 1 Ram Autar was a workman in the petitioner's establishment while respondent No. 2 Indian Press Mazdoor Union is a recognised Union of the workman of the petitioner. It is alleged that in view of the persistent Crisis, paucity of work and bleak future prospect of the printing industry it had been decided by the petitioner to resort to retrenchment in its establishment. The petitioner accordingly prepared a seniority list which was displayed on 12. 6. 1971. On 30 30.6.1971 Chhedi Lal Hand Fed Machineman, Sri Niaz Ahmad, Sri Raja Ram Bhatt Feeders Lallu Ram coolie, Sri Ram Dass III coolie, Shitladin Pandey and Bindeshari Pandey were retrenched in accordance with law and no industrial dispute arose as a result of the said order of retrenchment. The petitioner, thereafter further retrenched 10 workmen - vide notice dated 31.7.71. Out of such 10 retrenched workmen four workman took all their payment in full and find satisfaction while six workmen including respondent No. 1 through respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute challenging the validity of the retrenchment order dated 31. 7. 71 on various grounds. On a reference being made to the Labour Court an award was given on 19.12.72 holding the retrenchment of respondent No.l as illegal and invalid. Hence this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award dated 19.12.72 given in Adjudication Case No. 201 of, - 1972 issued under Notification No. 8722 dated 17.1.74 and published in Gazette dated 2.3.74. 3. The case of the petitioner as disclosed in the petitioner is that the retrenchment was effected after a seniority list was prepared and workmen were retrenched according to their seniority in view of the situation having arisen in the establishment. 3. The case of the petitioner as disclosed in the petitioner is that the retrenchment was effected after a seniority list was prepared and workmen were retrenched according to their seniority in view of the situation having arisen in the establishment. A notice as contemplated under Section 6 - N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was given to the State Government informing that the retrenchment would be effected 31.7.71. As a dispute arose between the parties a reference was made by the State Government to the Labour Court at Allahabad by a notification dated 3.7.1972. The petitioner participated in the adjudication and the parties filed their respective written - statements and rejoinder - affidavits. It is set forth in the petition that the written - statement on behalf of the workmen disclosed that the retrenchment of Ram Autar coolie is ineffective and inoperative because Janki and Khunnu Lal who are junior to Ram Autar respondent No. 1 have been retained in service and as such retrenchment of Ram Autar is violative of law. The petitioner in their rejoinder - affidavit before the Labour Court had stated that Janki was not a coolie but was assistant to Badloo Fitter and Khunnu Lal was a lead melter. The allegation that Ram Autar was retrenched while the junior to him in the category of coolie was thus alleged to be baseless and without any foundation. Necessary evidence in support of its case was filed by die petitioner before the Labour Court. It is stated that in view of the seniority list having been displayed and no objection forthcoming against it, the retrenchment was effected on 30.6.71 and 31.7.71. As per the seniority list Ram Autar was junior amongst the coolies on 31.7.71. Further it is set out in the petition that Lallu Lal and Ram Das III were retrenched on 30.6.71 and were not in employment on 31.7.71 when respondent No. 1 was retrenched. 4. However, the Labour Court made an award holding the retrenchment of respondent No. 1 Ram Autar as illegal on the ground that Lallu Ram and Ram Das III were coolies and juniors to Ram Autar have been retained in service. The Labour Court held that the retrenchment of Ram Autar is illegal and invalid and he has been directed to be reinstated with back wages. The Labour Court held that the retrenchment of Ram Autar is illegal and invalid and he has been directed to be reinstated with back wages. It has thus been alleged that the award is illegal and is liable to be set aside. 5. A counter - affidavit denying the allegations as set forth in the writ petition has been filed. It is stated in the counter - affidavit that no seniority list was ever displayed on the notice - board on 12.6.71. Even necessary evidence to that effect was not produced before the Labour Court showing that the seniority list was displayed on 12.6.71. It has been asserted in the counter - affidavit that all the documentary evidence which was filed before the Labour Court has been discussed in the award. It is wholly wrong on the part of the petitioner to state that the attendance register of June 1971 was filed before the Labour Court. The allegation of the petitioner that Lallu Ram and Ram Das III were retrenched on 30.6.71 has been denied. Neither such an assertion was made by the petitioner in his written - statement before the Labour Court nor any evidence in this respect was produced. Rather the seniority list which was produced before the Labour Court indicated that Lallu Ram and Ram Das III were still in service when the respondent No.l was retrenched. Janki and Khunnu Lal who were actually coolies have been wrongly shown in die seniority list as assistant fitters and lead metters. It has been further stated that the attendance register was not even produced before the Labour Court. 6. A rejoinder - affidavit has been filed. In the rejoinder - affidavit averments as contained in the counter - affidavit have been denied while those of the writ petition have been reiterated. 7. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the findings arrived at by the Labour Court, Respondent no. 3 are on the basis of a case set up by it though not pleaded by any party and thus it acted illegally and with material irregularity. It has been submitted that the finding of the Labour Court that Lallu Ram and Ram Das III were retained in employment on 31.7.71 is based on no evidence. 9. 3 are on the basis of a case set up by it though not pleaded by any party and thus it acted illegally and with material irregularity. It has been submitted that the finding of the Labour Court that Lallu Ram and Ram Das III were retained in employment on 31.7.71 is based on no evidence. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has strenuously urged that the award has been made by the respondent No. 3 on the basis of the material before it. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not reverse the finding of fact recorded by respondent No. 3 nor would reappraise the evidence. It has further been submitted that this Court would not sit in appeal so as to examine the findings of fact recorded. 10. I find merit in this submission. There is no dispute that respondent No. 1 was in the employment of the petitioner, as a coolie. It is also emerging from the records that Ram Autar is an active worker in the activities of the Union. Earlier also services of respondent No. 1 were retrenched but the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No. 65 of 1969 had held such retrenchment to be illegal on the ground that juniors to respondent no. 1 had been retained in service. The petitioner has resorted to the second exercise of retrenchment. Section 6(N) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides for the conditions precedent to the retrenchment of a workmen. It is quoted here in below in entirety : "6(N). Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. No workmen employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one. Section 6(N) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides for the conditions precedent to the retrenchment of a workmen. It is quoted here in below in entirety : "6(N). Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. No workmen employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one. year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until - (a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice wages for the period of the notice : Provided that no such notice shall be necessary if the retrenchment is under an agreement which specifies a date for the termination of service; (b) The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen day's average pay for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months, and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the State Government." 11. This Act further provides for the procedure for retrenchment as contemplated by 6(P) of this Act. It runs as follows: - "6 - P. Procedure for retrenchment - Where any workman in an industrial establishment who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman." It has now to be seen whether was satisfaction to the provisions as enshrined in Section 6 - N as well as 6 - P of the Act while terminating the services of respondent No. 1 by way of retrenchment. There is not a whisper in the writ petition or any material before the Labour Court which could show that one month's notice in writing was ever given to the respondent no. 1. However, there is an indication that wages in lieu of such notice for the period of notice was given but was declined by respondent No. 1. There is not a whisper in the writ petition or any material before the Labour Court which could show that one month's notice in writing was ever given to the respondent no. 1. However, there is an indication that wages in lieu of such notice for the period of notice was given but was declined by respondent No. 1. Further, the payment of compensation at the time of retrenchment of respondent No. 1 has not been done though it is contended that the same was sent to respondent No. 1, who refused to accept it. Further it has to be seen whether the notice in the prescribed manlier was served .on the State Government. The petitioner has contended that the requirement of the provisions as contained in Section 6 - N (c) were complied with. It is revealing from the record that the respondent No. 1 was not given one month's notice in writing though wages for the period of notice as well as the compensation were offered to him on 31.7.71 and on his refusal lo accept the same amount was sent by Money Order which was received under protest. The other aspect is whether the notice in the prescribed manner was served on the State Government or not has to be examined. This requirement apparently has not been satisfied as there is no indication as to when such a notice was sent and served on the State Government. 12. It thus remains to be seen as to whether procedure for retrenchment has been achieved in accordance with law as contemplated by Section 6 - P of the Act. The respondent No.3 on the basis of the material came to the conclusion that persons namely Lallu Ram and Ram Das III Junior to respondent No.l had been retained in service. This finding has been based on the basis of the document Ex. 28 produced by the petitioner before respondent no. 3. It has been vehemently urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Lallu Ram and Ram Das III had already been retrenched earlier and were not in service. However, it is difficult to accept the submission in view of a categorical finding arrived at by the Labour Court on the basis of the record before it. 3. It has been vehemently urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Lallu Ram and Ram Das III had already been retrenched earlier and were not in service. However, it is difficult to accept the submission in view of a categorical finding arrived at by the Labour Court on the basis of the record before it. In the case of Chail Behari Lal Saxena and others v. Labour Court, Bareilly and another, 1986 (1) LLN p. 926 it has been held by this Court that it is settled law that the findings of fact recorded by die Court or Tribunal cannot be interfered with unless such findings of fact are based on no legal evidence or are such that no reasonable person could have arrived at those findings on the basis of the material before the Court or the Tribunal. In the case, the conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court clearly reveal such reasonableness and it is difficult to substitute such findings by appraising die entire evidence and arrive at a different conclusion which is not permissible as the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not permit reappraisal of the evidence on the findings of fact. In the case of Syed Yakoob v. Radhakrishna, AIR 1964 SC 477 , and State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chitra Venkata Rao, (1976) 1 LLN 45, it has been held that there is no doubt about the proposition that if a finding of fact recorded by a Tribunal is based on evidence, such a finding cannot be interfered within a petition under Article 226. A finding of fact can be interfered only if they arc based upon no evidence i.e. based upon extraneous or irrelevant findings or otherwise perverse. In the instant case the respondent No. 3 on the basis of the material Ex. 28 found that Lallu Ram and Ram Das III who were junior to respondent No. 1 have been retained in service. It cannot be said that this finding has been arrived at on the basis of no evidence. Only a finding of fact which is based on no evidence or is otherwise perverse can no doubt be interfered with but such is not in the instant case. It cannot be said that this finding has been arrived at on the basis of no evidence. Only a finding of fact which is based on no evidence or is otherwise perverse can no doubt be interfered with but such is not in the instant case. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 , it has been held that where there is some evidence that the authority entrusted with their duty to hold the inquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding under evidence. The authorities seized with the matter are the sole Judges of fact and if there had been some legal evidence on which such findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in the proceedings for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. The above view was also followed by this Court in the case of J.K. Jute Mills Mazdoor Panchayat and another v. State of U.P. and others, 1986 (53) FLR 475. While challenging the orders passed by Labour Court under Article 226 of the Constitution it is true that the jurisdiction is too wide but at the same time such jurisdiction has to be exercised with great circumspection. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the court cannot constitute itself into an appellate court over the order passed by the Tribunal and re - adjudicate the issue or the questions of fact decided by the Labour Court. In the matter of dispute between Sadhu Ram v. Delhi Transport Corpn., 1962 (5) FLR 223 SC, it has been held that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has to be exercised with caution and not as an appellate forum. It has further been held that it will not entitle the High Court lo interfere with the finding on the jurisdictional fact which the Tribunal is well competent to decide. 13. It has further been held that it will not entitle the High Court lo interfere with the finding on the jurisdictional fact which the Tribunal is well competent to decide. 13. It may not always be open while exercising to pierce the veil of the order passed by the Labour Court Tribunal and have a close look at all the circumstances and come to a decision as regards the fact that the order was passed on account of certain misconduct by the petitioner or not. This is a finding of fact which could not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution unless the conclusion is perverse. Such a view was taken in the dispute between Mahendra Singh Dantwal v. Hidustan Motors Ltd. and others, 1976 (93) FLR 67 SC, by the Supreme Court. 14. In view of the above it is settled that the scope of interference with the findings of the departmental authorities is much more restricted and more so when such fundings of fact have been recorded by the appropriate forum (Labour Court, respondent No. 3). 15. Another aspect which cannot be ignored is that the petitioner has failed to establish that the notice was displayed on 12.6.71. Even otherwise in view of the findings above, it has to be held that the findings of fact recorded by respondent No. 3 in regard to the fact that persons namely Lallu Ram and Ram Das III who are junior to respondent No. 1 had teen retained in service and which finding had been arrived at on the basis of the material before it cannot be interfered. The petition is without merit and deserves to be dismissed. 16. In the result the petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.