The Mauran Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—This Mauran Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Limited (hereinafter described as the petitioner) seeks quashing of the award passed by the Labour Court, Patiala, dated 11.9.1985. By virtue of the impugned award the learned Labour Court, Patiala held that respondent-workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. So far as the backwages were concerned, the petitioner-Management was ordered to pay backwages at the rate of 25%. Respondent-workman was directed to report for duty within 30 days of the publication of the award. The relevant facts alleged are that the petitioner had terminated the services of the respondent-workman. It gave rise to an industrial dispute. The same was referred to the Labour Court, Patiala. The claim of the respondent was that the workman has put in more than six months'' service. His services were terminated without notice, charge-sheet, enquiry or compensation. He prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service and full wages. The petitioner-management filed the reply and contested the reference. It was pointed that the respondent was appointed vide resolution dated 25.2.1980 as a workman. He had been asked by the petitioner to deposit the security under the rules of the society. No reply was given by the respondent. In addition to that, the workman was stated to be habitual absentee from duty. He did not deposit the cash in hand with the society. It is on this account that his services were terminated on 4.9.1980, because the petitioner-society lost confidence in him.

The learned Labour Court on appraisal of evidence held that it was not mentioned at any time that respondent had to furnish cash security to a sum of Rs. 5000/-. There was no such rules to this effect. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court recorded that the termination of the services of the respondent-workman were not justified. With these findings, the impugned order was passed. Aggrieved by the same and for quashing of the said award, the present petition invoking Article 226 of the Indian Constitution has been filed.

The controversy raised with respect to the facts in dispute while invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, it is patent that this court will not sit ordinarily as a court of appeal over the decisions of the Tribunals. If there is any error of law, misreading of evidence or there is any error apparent on the face of the record, in that event this court would interfere in findings arrived at by the learned Labour Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Others, , considered the said question and held that if there is manifest error on the face of the record, the High Court would interfere in the findings arrived at by the Tribunals. It was held that :-

"It may therefore be taken as settled that a writ of ''certiorari'' could be issued to correct an error of law. But it is essential that it should be something more than a mere error; it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. The real difficulty with reference to this matter, however, is not so much in the statement of the principle as in its application to the facts of a particular case."

Similarly, in the case of Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra, , while referring to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ebrahim Aboobakar and Another Vs. Custodian General of Evacuee Property, , the Supreme Court held that findings of facts arrived at by the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act would only be interfered with if the authority had acted without jurisdiction or in excess of it or in violation of principles of natural justice. It was held that :-

"It is plain that such a writ cannot be granted to quash the decision of an inferior Court within its jurisdiction on the ground that the decision is wrong. Indeed, it must be shown before such a writ is issued that the authority which passed the order acted without jurisdiction or in excess of it or in violation of the principles of natural justice...............But once it is held that the Court has jurisdiction but while exercising it, it made a mistake the wronged party can only take the course prescribed by law for setting matters right inasmuch as the Court has jurisdiction to decide rightly as well as wrongly.

There is considerable force in this contention of the respondents."

The view was the same in the later decision in the case Shri Ambica Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. S.B. Bhatt and Another, . It was held as under :-

"The question about the nature and extent of the jurisdiction of the High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been the subject matter of several decisions of this Court. It is now well-settled that the said writ can be issued not only in cases of illegal exercise of jurisdiction but also to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record. In this connection, it may be pertinent to refer to the observations made by Denning, J. in Rex. v. North-umberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal, 1952-1 KB 338. The writ has been supposed to be confined to the correction of excess of jurisdiction, observed Lord Justice Denning, "and not to extent to the correction of errors of law and several judges has, in the present case, restored certiorari to its rightful position and shows that it can be used to correct error of law which appear on the face of the record even though they do not go to jurisdiction. There is no doubt that it is only errors of law which are apparent on the face of the record that can be corrected vide : Nagendra Nath Bora and Another Vs. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and Others, ".

Similarly, in the case of State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar, , the same view point prevailed.

It is patent from aforesaid that with respect to the controversy as to whether the services of the respondent-workman were terminated validly, if there is any error of law or manifest error apparent on the face of the record, this court will look into the same. The learned Labour Court had recorded a finding that there was no enquiry, no notice or any charge-sheet served. The services of the respondent were terminated simply on the ground that he had failed to furnish a cash security in the sum of Rs. 5000/-. It has been found as a fact that workman has to furnish security bond under the Rules. It was not the rule that he has to furnish cash security once, the security bonds have been furnished. The petitioner''s services were terminated simply on the ground that cash security is to be furnished. The attention of the court has not been drawn to any rule, whereby the cash security was necessarily to be furnished. In this view of the matter, the findings of the fact arrived at by the Labour Court need not be disturbed, because there is no manifest error apparent on the face of the record. By these findings, the petition being without merit fails and is dismissed.