Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 587 (RAJ)

Managing Committee v. Raj. Non

2008-02-25

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this petition the petitioner has prayed to quash and set-aside the Judgment/order dated 26.4.2004 (Annex.22) passed by learned Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short `the learned Tribunal') in application No. 7/2003. 2. Brief facts of the case according to the petitioner samiti are that respondent No.2 filed an application alongwith documents under section 21 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short `the Act of 1989') before the learned Tribunal. Respondent No.2 was appointed on the post of Teacher and was getting Rs. 2,500/- p.m. and she done her duties with utmost sincerity but because of arbitrary action of present petitioner, she was compelled to give resignation on 6.12.1996, which the petitioner samiti accepted on 4.1.1997. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 time and again met with the Secretary & Principal of the petitioner samiti with regard to making payment of gratuity to her. Thereafter, she gave notice and alongwith application for payment of gratuity. Thereafter, respondent No.2 submitted an application to the District Education Officer, Elementary Education, in this regard and the EOD, directed the present petitioner to make payment vide its letter dated 23.4.2002. The respondent No.2 worked in the petitioner samiti from 4.1.1988 to 4.1.1997 i.e. for about 9 years and as such, she is entitled to get Rs. 12,980/- as amount of gratuity with interest. 3. The petitioner samiti filed a detailed reply before the learned Tribunal controverting the facts mentioned by the respondent No.2. 4. The learned Tribunal after hearing learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, allowed the application filed by respondent No.2 after considering the facts and circumstances and entire material placed before him, vide Judgment/order dated 26.4.2004. 5. Being aggrieved with the impugned Judgment/order dated 26.4.2004, the present petitioner preferred this petition before this Court. 6. In Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003(2) WLC (SC) Civil 255 : 2003(3) SC 524 , Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under : "The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision." 7. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The wide jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 has to be exercised with great circumspection. The High Court cannot constitute itself into an appellate court over Tribunals. Article 226/227 is a device to secure and advance justice and not otherwise. In a case of this nature, it is true, the High Court exercising the power of judicial review, would not interfere with the discretion of a Tribunal unless the same is found to be illegal or irrational. In an application for a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an award of an Industrial Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the High Court is very limited. It can quash the award, inter alia, when the Tribunal has committed an error of law apparent on the face of record on when the finding of facts of the Tribunal is wholly perverse. It is also a settled law that in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court acts only in a supervisory capacity and not as an appellate tribunal. It does not review the evidence upon which the inferior tribunal proposed to base its conclusion, it simply demolished the order which. it considers to be without jurisdiction or manifestly erroneous, but does not as a rule, substitute its own view for those of the inferior tribunal. 9. In the present matter, I do not find any jurisdictional error, perversity and illegality in the Judgment/order dated 26.4.2004 passed by learned Tribunal, Jaipur in application No. 7/2005. The finding of the learned Tribunal is based on the basis of material placed before him. There is no error apparent in the face on record. I, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the Judgment/order dated 26.4.2004. In my view the writ petition does not call for any interference. The same is, therefore, dismissed. The finding of the learned Tribunal is based on the basis of material placed before him. There is no error apparent in the face on record. I, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the Judgment/order dated 26.4.2004. In my view the writ petition does not call for any interference. The same is, therefore, dismissed. The Judgment/order dated 26.4.2004 passed by learned Tribunal, Jaipur in Appeal No. 7/2005 is maintained. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******