Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 306 (HP)

Sunil Bakshi v. Dabur India Ltd.

2017-04-06

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, SANDEEP SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. CMP (M) No. 826 of 2016 and CMP No. 4158 of 2016. 1. Applicant/appellant has moved CMP No. 4158 of 2016 for readmission of appeal which had been dismissed in default on 29.5.2012. Alongwith the said application, CMP (M) No. 826 of 2016 has been moved for condonation of 3 years and 29 days’ delay which has crept-in in filing the application for readmission of appeal, on the grounds taken in the said application. 2. Apparently, more than three years delay has crept-in in filing the application for readmission. The appeal came to be dismissed in default on 29.5.2012 and the applicant/ appellant has come out of deep slumber after more than three years, is not in a position to explain the delay of years, not to speak of each day. Thus, the limitation petition merits to be dismissed for want of sufficient cause. However, we have gone through the merits of the appeal. Learned Single Judge has passed a detailed judgment and held that the Tribunal has made a well reasoned award. 3. 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. 4. The Apex Court in case titled as Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. 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. 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.” 5. 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. vs. State of H.P. 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 petitioners have failed to prove the defence raised, in answer to the references before the Tribunal." 6. This Court in a series of cases, being CWP No. 4622 of 2013 (supra); LPA No. 485 of 2012, titled as Arpana Kumari vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 11th August, 2014; LPA No. 23 of 2006, titled as Ajmer Singh vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 21st August, 2014; LPA No. 125 of 2014, titled as M/s. Delux Enterprises vs. H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. and 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. 7. Having said so, there is no merit in the limitation petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed and the LPA is consequently dismissed being time barred. Pending applications, if any also stand disposed of.