Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 784 (RAJ)

Ganesh Lal v. The Judge, Labour Court

2005-03-14

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 11.2004 (Annexure 8) passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara 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 are that the petitioner 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 28.5.1997 referred the matter for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur. 4. The learned Labour Court issued notices to the parties. The petitioner submitted statement of claim alleging inter alia that he was appointed on the post of Watchman (Class IV employee) on 10.1987 on a salary of Rs. 225/-under the control of respondent No. 4. The petitioner rendered his services from 10.1987 to 8.1989 honestly and satisfactorily. An experience certificate in this regard was also issued by the respondent No. 4. 5. It was also alleged in the claim petition that due to certain unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner went on without pay leave from 8.1989 and reported for duty back on 18.1989, but the respondent No. 4 refused to take him back on duty on the post of Watchmen and informed him that he can re-join only after such instructions are issued by the respondent No. 3. It was also alleged in the claim petition that the petitioner met the respondent No. 3 for taking him on duty, but the respondent No. 3 neither issued any order for rejoining of the petitioner nor any order was issued regarding termination of his services. The petitioner submitted number of representation to the respondent No. 3, but to no avail. 6. Further case of the petitioner is that when no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No. 850/1994, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11.1996 with a direction to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Government for referring the matter to the Labour Court. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the appropriate Government and the appropriate Government in turn referred the matter as aforesaid. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the appropriate Government and the appropriate Government in turn referred the matter as aforesaid. 7. Written statement was filed by the respondents in which it was alleged that the petitioner was not afforded appointment in accordance with law. It was also alleged that the petitioner was engaged for the trainees who come to undertake training and payment was made to the petitioner out of the fund collected from the trainees and thus, there was no relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and the respondents and thus, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not attracted in this case. 8. After recording evidence of both the parties, the learned Labour Court, vide its Judgment and award dated 11.2004 (Annexure 8), dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner. 9. In the instant petition, the main contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has worked with the respondent No. 4 continuously from 10.1987 to 8.1989. It has also been argued that there was relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and the respondents, thus, the provisions of Act of 1947 are attracted in this case. 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 when no post of Chowkidar was available with the respondent No. 3, there is no question of affording appointment to the petitioner on the said post. 12. Further more, there was no relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and respondents in as much as payment was not made to the petitioner by the respondents. The payment was made to the petitioner out of the fund collected from the trainees. When the petitioner was not the employees of respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. 13. In these circumstances, the learned Labour Court has rightly held that the termination of services of the petitioner by the respondents has not been proved. 14. When the petitioner was not the employees of respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. 13. In these circumstances, the learned Labour Court has rightly held that the termination of services of the petitioner by the respondents has not been proved. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 9.17. From perusing the Judgment and award dated 11.2004 (Annexure 8) passed by the learned Labour Court, it does not reveal that there is patent illegality and irregularity or error of law apparent on the fact of record and the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are perverse. 10.18. 9.17. From perusing the Judgment and award dated 11.2004 (Annexure 8) passed by the learned Labour Court, it does not reveal that there is patent illegality and irregularity or error of law apparent on the fact of record and the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are perverse. 10.18. Thus, the Judgment and award dated 11.2004 (Annexure 8) 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. 19. For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.