Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2185 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Chhagan Lal Joshi

2005-08-18

R.P.VYAS

body2005
Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-Heard at admission stage. 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the Judgment and award dated 14.02.2003 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara may be quashed and set aside. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 workman raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. However, the said conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation Officer submitted failure report to the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government vide notification dated 21.04.2001 referred the matter for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara. 4. The learned Labour Court issued notices to the parties. The respondent No. 1 workman submitted statement of claim alleging, inter alia, that he was engaged as daily wage employee on 19.06.1997. His services were terminated from 16.03.2000 illegally, without complying with the mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947). He has also not been paid the salary for the months of October, November, December, 1999 and January and February, 2000 and on demand of wages, his services have been terminated by the petitioner on 16.03.2000. Hence, the respondent No. 1 workman was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 5. Written statement was filed by the petitioner in which it was alleged that the respondent workman was not in employment of the petitioner but he was engaged through sharp/reliance security, which was employer of the respondent No. 1. The petitioner have acted in accordance with the norms and condition laid down by the Government. So far as demand of the wages are concerned, the same were denied as the respondent No.1 workman was to be paid the salary by the sharp/reliance security for the months of October, 1999 to February, 2000. No direct payment used to be made by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1 workman but the total amount of wages was to be given to sharp/reliance security as per contract agreement entered into between the sharp/reliance security and the Government of Rajasthan. The petitioner had no supervisory and the administrative control over the respondent No. 1 as there was no contract between the workman and the petitioner directly. Since, the respondent No. 1 was not employed by the petitioner, hence the compliance or non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act is irrelevant to the present controversy. 6. The petitioner had no supervisory and the administrative control over the respondent No. 1 as there was no contract between the workman and the petitioner directly. Since, the respondent No. 1 was not employed by the petitioner, hence the compliance or non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act is irrelevant to the present controversy. 6. After recording evidence of both the parties, the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara vide its Judgment and award dated 14.02.2003 (Annexure-5), allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent No. 1 workman and directed reinstatement of the respondent- workman without back wages. 7. In the instant petition, the main contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 was not even employee of the petitioner. He was engaged through Sharp/Reliance Security with whom the petitioner had entered into contract for supply of labour. Thus, there was no relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and the respondent No.1. 8. In my opinion, the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are based on correct appreciation of evidence. The learned Labour Court has clearly recorded that the witness produced on behalf of the Department, namely, Karnidan has admitted in his cross-examination that the respondent No. 1 was working as pump driver and in the log-book signatures of Chhagan Lal are there for the period from 19.06.1997 to 15.03.2000, which clearly shows that the respondent workman was working with the petitioner. The workman in his statement has also stated that he was engaged by Assistant Engineer Kothari ji. However, the Department has not examined the said Assistant Engineer, Kothari ji. The learned Labour Court has drawn adverse inference for not producing Kothari Ji during which period, the workmen were engaged. The learned Labour Court has also held that from the log-book it is also apparent that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. So far as engagement of the respondent- workman by the Security agency is concerned, no documentary evidence was produced to show that the respondent -workman was engaged through a security agency and there was contract between the security agency and the petitioner. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Labour Court has recorded a finding that the respondent- workman was engaged by the petitioner and before terminating his services provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 have not been complied with. 9. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Labour Court has recorded a finding that the respondent- workman was engaged by the petitioner and before terminating his services provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 have not been complied with. 9. Thus, 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 which the inferior Court could have come to conclusion it did or there was error of finding on a jurisdictional fact. 12. From perusing the Judgment and award dated 14.02.2003 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara 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. Therefore, the same do not require any interference by this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 13. For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.