State of Uttarakhand and Another vs Sri Pawan Kumar and Another

B.S. Verma, J.

(Stay Application No. 6666 of 2011)

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

By means of this writ petition, the Petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haridwar-Respondent No. 2 dated 20-12-2010 in Adjudication Case No. 411 of 2009 (Old Adjudication Case No. 89 of 2007), whereby the termination of the workman by the employer was set aside and the workman was held to be entitled to reinstatement in service but without back-wages.

A perusal of the record shows that that the State of Uttarakhand u/s 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haridwar:

Whether the termination of the above noted workman by the Employer was justified or/and legal. If not, the Workman is entitled to get what relief/benefits.

The workman in his written statement filed before the Labour Court has stated that he had worked with the employer from 7-5-1987 to 11-1-1992 and during this period, he was deputed from time to time to do the work, but on 11-1-1992, his services were terminated by the employer illegally and No. notice was given to him and No. salary in lieu of notice had been paid to the workman and that the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act and Rule 42 of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Rules 1957 were not complied with.

The employer in its written statement has stated that the workman had worked casually on account of exigency and after 1987, the workman did not turn up at his own. 6. Before the Labour Court the workman Panwar Kumar examined himself as Workman Witness No. 1 and the employer has examined Puneet Kumar as Employer Witness No. 7. The workman filed a number of documents in evidence, while the employer filed photo copy of muster rolls from the year 1989 to 1999.

The learned Presiding Officer framed the following points for determination:

Whether the workman had worked for 240 days in a calendar year or in twelve calendar months?

Whether the employer has adopted the procedure as prescribed under the law before the termination of the service of workman?

The learned Labour Court after recording the evidence of the parties and after hearing both the parties has recorded a finding of fact that the total number of working days on which the workman had worked comes to 244 days in one calendar year. The learned Labour Court after perusing the muster roll and chart submitted by the employer has held that the workman had worked for 244 days in the calendar year 1989. Point No. 1 has been answered in favour of the workman. On point No. 2, it has been held that before termination of the workman-Respondent No. l herein No. procedure was adopted as prescribed by Section 6-N of the Act and Rule 42 of the aforesaid Rules. Ultimately, the impugned award was passed with the direction that the workman be reinstated in service. No. back-wages were awarded.

At the outset, it may be mentioned that this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot sit like a court of appeal. In the case "Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash" (2004) 3 S.C.C. 682], the Apex Court has observed inter alia in paragraph 4 of the judgment that "An error which needs to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments or by indulging in a long-drawn process of reasoning, cannot possibly be an error available for correction by writ of certiorari. If it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at one way or the other, cannot be called a patent error. As to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution also, it has been held in Surya Dev Rai that the jurisdiction was not available to be exercised for indulging in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors in drawing inferences like a court of appeal."

10 The Apex Court in the case of Shamshad Ahmad and Others Vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj (Deceased) through LRs. and Others, while dealing with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as observed as under:

Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the limits of law.

The main ground of challenge in this writ petition is that the learned Labour Court has wrongly calculated the total working days and the finding is against the evidence led by the parties.

In the case at hand, the Petitioners have relied upon the written statement filed on behalf of the Petitioner No. 2-Research Officer with whom the workman had worked during the period of his employment. I have perused the written statement filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition. In this written statement has nowhere given the break-up of the days on which the workman had worked but has only stated that the workman has not proved that he had worked for more than 240 days.

It is well settled law that the finding of fact recorded by the court below cannot be set aside by the writ court unless perversity is there. In the case at hand, the learned Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact on the basis of the material adduced before it and has found that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Moreover, the Petitioners have filed the attendance sheet/muster roll of the workman for the years 1989 to 1992. The learned Labour Court relying upon the muster-roll filed by the employer has recorded a finding of fact that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Now, the Petitioners cannot deny the muster roll filed by them in this writ petition. The finding is fully based on appraisal of evidence. The learned Labour Court has not awarded back-wages to the workman. Learned Counsel for the workman also submitted that back-wages were not claimed by the workman himself before the learned Labour Court.

For what has been stated above, I find No. perversity or manifest error of law in the impugned award. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed outright at the threshold.

The writ petition is dismissed in limine.

All pending applications stand disposed of.