AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.—Challenge in the present writ petition is to the Award dated 31.03.2014 (Annexure P-4) whereby, the respondent-workman has been held entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages @ 4,070/- per month from the date of his termination i.e. 01.01.2010 till his reinstatement alongwith all consequential benefits.
The case of the workman in his demand notice dated 06.11.2009 was that his services had been unlawfully terminated w.e.f. 08.10.2009 and he had joined as a Machine Operator on 26.06.1991 and accordingly, he claimed reinstatement.
On the matter being referred to the Labour Court, the relationship of the employer-employee was also denied. On the basis of the evidence led by the workman Shiv Kumar as PW-1 and the statement of Sh. Om Parkash Yadav, the Managing Director of the petitioner-company, who was examined as RW-1, the Labour Court held that the documents which have been relied upon by the workman in the form of salary certificate, declaration showed that there was relationship of the workman with the petitioner concern. The plea that he was not working with the petitioner-company was rejected on the ground that even an argument had been raised that the workman was not willing to continue due to domestic problems. The said document allegedly executed by the workman is dated 27.11.2009 (Annexure P-1). Perusal of the same would go on to show that even if it is to be taken as signed by the workman, gratuity, leave encashment and other dues were to be paid. There is nothing on record to show that such dues had been paid when the workman had left on his own. Thus, it is clear that contradictory plea had been taken. On the one hand, the relationship is denied and on the other hand, it has been averred that he had left on his own. In such circumstances, it is clear that the termination of the services of the respondent-workman was rightly found to be in violation of the Section 25-F of the Act. The workman had put in 8 years of service and the Labour Court, as per Ex. P-5, held that he was drawing Rs. 4,070/- as salary per month and has accordingly directed reinstatement and a factual finding has been recorded which is not liable to be interfered with.
It has time and again been held by the Apex Court that while exercising the powers of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is to exercise its power only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice has taken place. The High Court will not convert itself into a Court of appeal and indulge, appreciate or evaluate evidence and correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. The said principle was laid down in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, It is where the Tribunal has acted illegally in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it and decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to the principles of natural justice, this Court would interfere. The error of law has to be apparent on the face of the record and it has to be manifestly clear that the conclusion of law recorded by the Tribunal is in misinterpretation of the relevant statutory provisions or in ignorance in regard of the same. Thus, what can be corrected is an error of law, which would be of such character which is apparent on the face of the record and if the statutory provision is capable of two constructions and one of it had been adopted by the Tribunal, it may not be desirable to correct the same by way of writ of certiorari.
In the present case, no such error of law or fact has been shown which would warrant interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no scope for interference in the well reasoned order of Labour Court and the writ petition is dismissed in limine.