The Management of Poogavanam Silk Factory vs The Labour Court and C. Ramdoss C. Ramdoss Vs The Labour Court and The Management of Poogavanam Silk Factory

Markandey Katju, C.J.—Aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 2-2-1998, passed by the learned single Judge, the Management as well

as the workman have preferred these writ appeals.

The dispute between the parties is whether the second respondent was a ''workman'' under the appellant Management. An industrial dispute

was raised by the second respondent workman, alleging that he had worked in the appellant''s factory since 25-1-1979 but he was terminated

from service in the year 1987. The dispute was referred to the labour court where the appellant contended that the second respondent was never

employed by the appellant . The finding of fact recorded by the labour court is that the second respondent had been in the employment of the

appellant. The Management challenged the award of the labour court in the writ petition and the learned single Judge quashed the award of the

labour court and allowed the writ petition . The learned single Judge, however, in paragraph 13 of the impugned order directed the reinstatement of

the respondent-workman with full back wages and all other attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the directions of the learned single Judge in paragraph

13 of the impugned order, the Management has filed W.A. No.1536 of 1998. The second-respondent workman also filed W.A. No.2124 of

1999 against the impugned order, quashing the award of the labour court.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. The finding of fact recorded by the labour court is that the

second respondent was a workman under the appellant Management . There is evidence in support of this finding. In writ jurisdiction, this Court

cannot interfere with a finding of fact unless such finding of fact is based on no evidence . Adequacy of evidence is not a ground for interference in

writ jurisdiction . Under Art. 226 of the Constitution this Court cannot act as an appellate court and reappreciate the evidence to go into the merits

or demerits of the findings of fact recorded by the labour court. There was, in our opinion, also no misreading of evidence by the labour court. The

labour court gave a finding that the second respondent workman was removed from service due to enmity between the father of the second

respondent and the Managing Partner of the appellant firm. We cannot interfere with this finding of fact or the finding of fact recorded by the labour

court that the second respondent workman was an employee under the appellant. However, we are of the opinion that the directions of the learned

single Judge in paragraph 13 of the impugned order are unsustainable. We, therefore, while confirming the award of the labour court, delete the

directions given by the learned single Judge in paragraph 13 of the impugned order.

The writ appeals are disposed off. Connected C.M.P.No.16934 of 1998 is closed.