Chief Medical and Health Officer vs Judge Labour Court No. 2 and Another

Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.—The petitioner seeks to quash the award dated August 7, 2003 of Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur whereby the reference made to it u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ''1947 Act'') was answered in favour of the respondent workman and the order dated March 10, 1995, terminating the services of respondent workman was declared illegal and the workman was found entitled to be reinstated in the services with 25% back wages.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently canvassed that the findings arrived at by learned Tribunal were wholly perverse, since the decision was based upon irrelevant factors not germane for the purpose of arriving at a correct finding of fact. Reliance is placed on Manager R.B.I. Bangalore vs. S. Mani AIR 2005 SCW 1729 . Learned Counsel for the petitioner alternatively canvassed that even if the termination order was found invalid the respondent workman could be compensated, his reinstatement was not necessary. Reliance is placed on Haryana Tourism Corporation Ltd. Vs. Fakir Chand, etc. etc., . It is next contended that by reinstating the respondent workman in services the Labour Court had virtually absorbed him which was not permissible under law, Reliance is placed on Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Bhola Singh, .

Having gone through the material on record, I notice that the learned Labour Court after scanning the oral and documentary evidence of the parties observed that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in one Calendar year. The award of the Tribunal is based upon relevant factors. There was proper appreciation of the statement of the workman as well as the evidence adduced by the employer. The case law on which reliance is placed by learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of the instant matter.

In Manager R.B.I. Bangalore v. S. Mani (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court was of the view that the finding of learned Tribunal directing reinstatement of Ticca Mazdoors were wholly perverse. The Tribunal apparently posed unto himself wrong questions and the decision was based upon irrelevant factors not germane for the purpose of arriving at a correct finding of fact. Therefore the case for judicial review was made out.

In Haryana Tourism Corporation Ltd. v. Fakir Chand (supra), the Apex Court in para 5 observed as under:

"...These respondents, as stated earlier, were mostly working as Cook, Cleaner, Sweeper and Gardner, etc., and by the nature of their work, they must have been doing similar work elsewhere if not regularly, at least intermittently after their services were terminated."

Having regard to the above facts, the Hon''ble Apex Court was of the view that direction to reinstate workmen would not be a just and equitable solution at that distance of time. The time gap and looking to the fact that the amount of daily wages therefore the Hon''ble Apex Court directed the employer to pay a sum of Rs. 70,000/-to each of the workmen by way of compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Bhola Singh (supra), was the case where right to absorption/regularization was considered of daily wager employee under Apprentices Act, 1961,

In the instant case learned Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and I do not find it a fit case where powers under Article 227 of the Constitution can be invoked. In Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, , Three Judge Bench of Hon''ble Supreme Court in para 7 indicated thus:-

"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."

For these reasons the writ petition fails and stands dismissed without any order as to costs.