AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The challenge in this petition is made to the award dated 22-06-2009 passed in the Case No.03/I.D. Act/08 (Reference) whereby the Labour
Court answered the terms of reference in favour of the workmen and directed that their cases be considered for regularization as per Circular
dated 16-05-2007.
Learned counsel for the State raised a singular contention. He submits that the Labour Court has erred in giving a finding in the award that the
workmen were not appointed for a stipulated/fixed period. This finding is perverse in nature. He submits that employees/workmen have no legal
right whatsoever for regularization.
Shri Parag Tiwari, learned counsel for the workmen supported the impugned award.
No other point is pressed by the parties.
I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
In Page 4 of the award, the Labour Court has given a specific finding that on perusal of the Exhibits D/1 to D/5, it is clear that the first party was
not appointed for a fixed period. No documentary evidence was brought to the notice of this Court to show that such finding is either perverse or
contrary to record. Thus, I am not inclined to interfere on a finding of fact, which is recorded by Court below after perusal of the record. This is
trite law that in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court is not obliged to act as an Appellate Court and re-appreciate
and reweigh the evidence. If a finding is shown to be perverse, then alone interference can be made.
The impugned award shows that the services of the workmen were earlier terminated and this termination could not sustain judicial scrutiny
before the Labour Court. The earlier order of Labour Court whereby the termination was set aside had attained finality.
In the impugned award, the Labour Court has passed an innocuous order. The Labour Court directed the employer to consider the claim of
regularization of workmen in the light of Circular dated 16-05-2007. The Tribunal has neither exceeded jurisdiction nor the said award suffers from
any manifest procedural impropriety or perversity. Thus, I find no reason to interfere in this matter.
The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.