Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1075 (RAJ)

Municipal Board, Sriganganagar v. Arun Sharma

2005-04-07

R.P.VYAS

body2005
Honble VYAS, J.–The instant petition is directed against the impugned award dated 12.5.2004 (Annex. P/1) passed by the learned Labour Court, Sriganganagar. (2). The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute regarding termination of the services w.e.f. 31.3.1991 before the Conciliation Officer. The Conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation Officer submitted failure report to the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government vide its Notification dated 27.5.2003 referred the matter to the learned Labour Court for adjudication. (3). On the reference, notices were issued to the parties and the respondent workman submitted claim petition alleging inter alia that he was appointed on the post of Meter Reader by verbal order dated 3.1.1987 and he worked till 31.3.1991, on which date his services is terminated by verbal order without following the mandatory provisions of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1947). (4). Reply to the claim petition was filed by the petitioner alleging inter alia that the respondent workman was given appointment on daily wages basis for fixed term and his services automatically came to an end on expiry of the term. It was also alleged that respondent workman has not completed 240 days in a calendar year. Hence, the respondent is not entitled to get any relief. (5). After recording evidence, the learned Labour Court vide judgment dated 12.5.2004 (Annex. P/1) allowed the claim petition and directed reinstatement of the respondent workman with 50% back wages. (6). Hence, the instant writ petition. (7). Heard learned counsel for the parties. (8). In the instant petition the main contention of the petitioner Municipal Board is that the respondent workman was appointed on daily wages basis for a fixed term and his services automatically came to an end on expiry of the aforesaid term, thus, provisions of the Act of 1947 are not applicable in this case. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court regarding completion of 240 days in based on conjuncture and surmises. (9). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- workman has supported the impugned judgment passed by the Labour Court and stated that same does not require any interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (10). (9). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- workman has supported the impugned judgment passed by the Labour Court and stated that same does not require any interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (10). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and scrutinised and scanned the material available on record. (11). The learned Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact on the basis of material available on record that the petitioner has completed 240 days in a calendar year, however, before terminating the services of the petitioner mandatory provisions of Section 25F, G and H have not been complied with. (12). In these circumstances, the learned Labour Court has rightly held that the services of the petitioner have been illegally terminated. (13). In my considered opinion, the findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court are based on correct appreciation of entire evidence and material available on record and it cannot be said that the findings of the Labour Court are erroneous or perverse or patently unreasonable or based on no material on record. The findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court do not suffer from any basic illegality or infirmity. (14). Apart from that, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot interfere with the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the inferior Court or Tribunal, unless its findings are clearly perverse or patently unreasonable. While exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not act as Court of appeal. (15). The High Courts power of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution would be restricted to interference in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law, and would be exercised most sparingly, in cases where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. (15). The High Courts power of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution would be restricted to interference in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law, and would be exercised most sparingly, in cases where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. It cannot be used as appellate or revisional power nor will the High Court, in exercise of this power, substitute its own judgment for that of the inferior Court, whether on a question of fact, or of law, or interfere with the intra vires exercise of a discretionary power, unless it is arbitrary or capricious, or unless there was no evidence at all on the which the inferior court could have come to conclusion it did there was error of finding on a jurisdiction fact. (16). From perusing the judgment and award dtd. 12.5.2004 (Annex. P/1) passed by the learned Labour Court, it does not reveal that there is patent illegality and irregularity or error of law apparent on the face of record and the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are perverse. (17). During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the controversy involved in the instant petition has been set at rest in similar writ petition bearing SBCWP No. 1285/2000 Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar vs. Balveer Singh and Ors. (18). In the case of Municipal Council vs. Balveer Singh (supra), this Court has modified the impugned award to the extent that the backwages awarded to the respondents workman from the date of retrenchment till the date of award is modified to the extent that he shall be entitled for 50% of the backwages from the date of reference till the date of award. (19). This fact has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent workman. (20). Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of and the impugned award dated 12.5.2004 (Annex. P/1) is modified to the extent that the backwages awarded to the respondents workman from the date of retrenchment till the date of award is modified to the extent that he shall be entitled for 50% of the backwages from the date of reference till the date of award. No order as to costs.