Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 707 (RAJ)

Kuldeep Singh v. The Judge, Labour Court

2005-03-02

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 dated 9.7.2001 (Annexure P/6) passed by the learned Labour Court and notification dated 35.2002 (Annexure P/7) may be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be reinstated in services with all consequential benefits. 3. The brief facts of the case that the petitioner was appointed as conductor under the respondents No. 2 vide order dated 15.1984 on temporary and daily wages basis. The petitioner remained in service till 29.5.1984 and his services were terminated vide order dated 30.5.1984. 4. Against the order dated 30.5.1984, the petitioner filed a civil suit which was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947). 5. Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner raised an Industrial dispute before the Conciliation officer which ultimately failed and the conciliation officer submitted failure report to the Appropriate Government. The Appropriate Government in turn referred the matter to the learned Labour Court vide reference dated 8.1998. 6. The learned Labour Court issued notices to the parties. The petitioner submitted statement of claim alleging inter alia that while the petitioner was posted as conductor on 29.5.1984, the vehicle was inspected by the Inspector and at the time of the checking, five passengers were found without ticket. 7. Further case of the petitioner is that while the petitioner was discharging his duties on 30.5.1984 as Conductor on Karanpur-Sri Ganganagar route, the bus was checked by checking party and six passengers were found without ticket. It has further been alleged by the petitioner that these six passengers were found without ticket as they have boarded the bus just before checking and they were likely to be issued tickets. 8. Further case of the petitioner is that the checking party falsely recorded the remarks in the inspection report that six passengers were found without ticket. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that on both the occasions, the checking party compelled the petitioner to put his signatures on the inspection report and when the petitioner denied, then the checking inspector threatened the petitioner to further make remarks of misconduct and misbehaviour against him. 9. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that on both the occasions, the checking party compelled the petitioner to put his signatures on the inspection report and when the petitioner denied, then the checking inspector threatened the petitioner to further make remarks of misconduct and misbehaviour against him. 9. Further case of the petitioner is that without issuing any charge-sheet and due enquiry, services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 30.5.1984. 10. The respondents filed written statement stating that the services of the petitioner have been terminated on account of incidents which took place on 29.5.1984 and 30.5.1984 respectively. The aforesaid incidents amounted to serious misconduct on the part of the petitioner. 11. After recording evidence of both the parties, the learned Labour Court vide its Judgment and award dated 9.7.2001 (Annexure P/6) dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner. The award dated 9.7.2001 has been published in the official Gazette on 35.2002 (Annexure P/7). 12. In the instant petition, the main contention of the petitioner, is that before terminating the services of the petitioner neither any enquiry under the Standing Order was conducted nor any request for holding an enquiry under Section 11A of the Act was made by the employer before the learned Labour (sic). It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are one sided and only evidence adduced by the employer has been considered as true, whereas the evidence of the petitioner has not been considered and discarded, without any basis. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the findings of the learned Labour Court on 29.5.1984 and 30.5.1984 that the petitioner allowed the passengers to travel without ticket and withhold fare of tickets received by such passengers are against the material available on record. It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioner that admittedly the petitioner remained in service for 15 days only, but the same was immaterial and since the services of the petitioner were terminated on the basis of misconduct, the learned Labour Court completely failed to apply the relevant provisions of law while holding that the enquiry is necessary if any employee completes 240 days and consequently, the impugned award is liable to be quashed and set aside. 13. 13. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and scrutinised and scanned the material available on record. 14. The petitioner was appointed for a period of one months and during this short tenure of 15 days i.e. on 29.5.1984 and 30.5.1984, he was found guilty of carrying the passengers without tickets. 15. In the appointment order of the petitioner, there was specific condition that in case, the petitioner is found involved in any irregularity and corrupt practices, his services shall be terminated without any notice. 16. In these circumstances, the learned Labour Court has rightly held that the services of the petitioner were terminated in terms of conditions in the appointment order. 17. 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 of 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. 18. 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. 9.19. The High Courts power of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution would be restricted to interference in cases of grave dereliction of duty of 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 vire s 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. 10.20. 10.20. From perusing the Judgment and award dated 9.7.2001 (Annexure P/6) 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. 121. Thus, the Judgment and award dated 9.7.2001 (Annexure P/6) passed by the learned Labour Court cannot be said to be suffering from the basic infirmity and illegality and the same does not require any interference by this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 22. For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.