Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 596 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Judge Labour Court, Ajmer

2008-02-26

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition the State Government has prayed that the award dated 20.10.2001 (Annexure-5) passed by the respondent No. 1, Labour Court, Ajmer be quashed and set aside and also prayed to this court that the statements of claim filed by the respondent No. 3 to 9 through respondent No. 2 be rejected and held that the respondent No. 3 to 9 are not workman. It is also prayed for any other appropriate order or direction in favour of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the State Government (petitioner) has referred the matter for purpose of adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) to the Labour Court that the respondents were appointed in the service on the different dates and they worked in the Office of the petitioner for more than 240 days in a year and the retrenchment of the respondents are illegal. They were terminated by the oral order. The respondent No. 2 to 9 further stated that when they were terminated from the service no seniority list were prepared by the petitioner. On the contrary, the junior persons were working in the Office of the petitioner. 3. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted in their reply before the Labour Court that there is violation of provision of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has been done by the petitioner department. It was also submitted by the petitioner before the Labour Court that the services were taken only on daily wages strictly on the basis of need and as per requirement if any, it was only on daily wages. The petitioner-department further replied before the Labour Court that the respondents never working with the petitioner for more than 240 days in a calendar year. 4. The learned Labour Court, Ajmer recorded the statements and after considering the affidavit filed by the respondents reached to the conclusion and passed the award on 20.10.2001 in favour of the respondents. 5. Against the said award the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also scanned the material on record. 7. 5. Against the said award the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also scanned the material on record. 7. The Division Bench of this court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 423/1997 Management M/s. Bharatpur Nutritional Products Ltd. v. Ishwar Chand and in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 422/1997 The Management M/s. Bharatpur Nutritional Products Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan has considered the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant portion of the aforesaid case runs as under : "Having carefully scanned the impugned order, I notice that all the contentions raised before me were analyzed and considered in great details by the Labour Court. The scope of supervisory jurisdiction was explained by the Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Company Limited, [2003(2) WLC (SC) Civil 255 : 2003(3) S.C.C. 524 ] which runs in (Para-7) : "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 227 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." 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. 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 award passed by the respondent No. 1 (Judge, Labour Court, Ajmer). The finding of the labour court 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 award passed by the labour court dated 20.10.2001. In my view the writ petition does not call for any interference. The same is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. 10. Mr. S.N. Kumawat requested to this court that a direction should be given to the respondents in the interest of the poor workers that the award of the labour Court dated 20.10.2001 should be implemented within a period of two months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. Hence, I direct to the concerning authorities to implement this order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******