Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1507 (HP)

Mohan Lal v. Divisional Forest Officer, Chamba

2016-07-28

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, SANDEEP SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 15th May, 2015, made by the Writ Court in CWP No. 3396 of 2014, titled as Mohan Lal versus Divisional Forest Officer, Chamba, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner came to be dismissed (for short "the impugned judgment"). 2. The subject matter of the writ petition was award, dated 13th November, 2013, made by the Labour Court, Dharamshala, while answering Reference No. 207/2012. 3. The Labour Court has examined the facts as well as law applicable and dismissed the reference. The Writ Court has also held that the Labour Court has marshalled out and thrashed the facts in its right perspective and no interference is required. 4. We have gone through the impugned judgment, is legal one, needs no interference for the following reasons: 5. It is well settled principle of law that the Writ Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court and set aside the award made by the Labour Court, which is based on evidence and facts. 6. The Apex Court in case titled as Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi versus M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 3157, held that the findings of fact recorded by Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be questioned in writ proceedings and the Writ Court cannot act as an Appellate Court. It is profitable to reproduce para 18 of the judgment herein: “18. A careful reading of the judgments reveals that the High Court can interfere with an Order of the Tribunal only on the procedural level and in cases, where the decision of the lower courts has been arrived at in gross violation of the legal principles. The High Court shall interfere with factual aspect placed before the Labour Courts only when it is convinced that the Labour Court has made patent mistakes in admitting evidence illegally or have made grave errors in law in coming to the conclusion on facts. The High Court granting contrary relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution amounts to exceeding its jurisdiction conferred upon it. Therefore, we accordingly answer the point No. 1 in favour of the appellant.” 7. The High Court granting contrary relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution amounts to exceeding its jurisdiction conferred upon it. Therefore, we accordingly answer the point No. 1 in favour of the appellant.” 7. The same principle has been laid down by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, CWP No. 4622 of 2013, titled as M/s Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd. versus State of HP and another, being the lead case, decided on 04.08.2014. It is worthwhile to reproduce para 13 of the judgment herein: "13. Applying the test to the instant case, the question of fact determined by the Tribunal cannot be made subject matter of the writ petition and more so, when the writ petitioner(s) have failed to prove the defence raised, in answer to the references before the Tribunal." 8. This Court in a series of cases, being CWP No. 4622 of 2013 (supra); LPA No. 485 of 2012, titled as Arpana Kumari versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 11th August, 2014; LPA No. 23 of 2006, titled as Ajmer Singh versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 21st August, 2014; LPA No. 125 of 2014, titled as M/s. Delux Enterprises versus H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. & others, decided on 21st October, 2014; and LPA No.143 of 2015, titled Gurcharan Singh (deceased) through his LRs vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 15th December, 2015, while relying upon the latest decision of the Apex Court in Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi's case (supra), has held that question of fact cannot be interfered with by the Writ Court. However, such findings can be questioned if it is shown that the Tribunal/Court has erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence or has erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned findings. 9. Having said so, no case for interference is made out. However, we deem it proper to make an observation in the interest of the appellant-writ petitioner that in case the Government has to make new appointments at any time relating to the post concerned, the appellant-writ petitioner be given preference. 10. With these observations, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is disposed of alongwith all pending applications.