Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 611 (RAJ)

Fakir Mohd. v. Judge, Labour Court

2008-02-27

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this petition the petitioner has prayed to quash and set-aside the order dated 21.9.2001 (Annex.1) and order dated 16.7.1990 (Annex.2) by which the major punishment of removal from service has been given to the petitioner as also to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits and wages. 2. Brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that he was initially appointed on the post of Helper on 22.10.1971 and thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Sheet Metal Worker Grade B. On 19.8.1988, he was served with a charge-sheet for remaining absent from duty. The department initiated inquiry against the petitioner but as alleged by the petitioner, he was not given full fledged opportunity of defence. After inquiry, the respondent department terminated the services of the petitioner on 16.7.1990. The petitioner being aggrieved with the termination order preferred a reference case before the learned Labour Court, Kota. The learned Labour Court after hearing learned counsel for the respective parties dismissed the reference case of the petitioner vide Judgment dated 21.9.2001 and declared the termination order issued by the respondent department as valid and legal. The respondents before the Labour Court, Kota, has stated that the petitioner remained absent from 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 and the total absence of above years comes to near-about 177 days and he remained absent in 1987-88 about 193 days. Thus, he is habitual of remaining absent from duty. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved the judgment dated 21.9.2001 passed by learned Labour Court, Kota, preferred a writ petition before this Court. 4. In Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003(2) WLC (SC) Civil 255 : 2003(3) SCC 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 with 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 27 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 27 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." 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record as also the Judgment passed by learned Labour Court, Kota. 6. 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 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.In the present matter, I do not find any jurisdictional error, perversity and illegality in the Judgment dated 21.9.2001 passed by learned Labour Court, Kota. The finding of the learned Labour Court is based on the material placed before him. There is no error apparent on the face on record. I, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the Judgment/award dated 21.9.2001. In my view, the writ petition does not call for any interference. The same is, therefore, dismissed. The finding of the learned Labour Court is based on the material placed before him. There is no error apparent on the face on record. I, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the Judgment/award dated 21.9.2001. In my view, the writ petition does not call for any interference. The same is, therefore, dismissed. The Judgment 21.9.2001 passed by learned Labour Court, Kota in Reference Case No. 75/19925, is maintained. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******