The Superintending Engineer, Vellore Electricity Distn. vs P. Kala and Others

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board represented by its Superintending Engineer, Vellore Electricity Distribution Circle is the petitioner in this Writ Petition and the challenge is to an award passed by the Labour Court, Vellore in I.D. No. 82 of 1998.

The first respondent herein challenged the order of dismissal passed against her by the petitioner by raising a dispute before the Labour Court, Vellore in I.D. No. 82 of 1998. The first respondent''s husband was a permanent employee of the Board and he died in harness and thereafter, the first respondent was appointed as Office Helper (Trainee) on 21.03.1996. At the time of her appointment, she produced an educational qualification certificate stating that she had passed 8th standard and the said certificate was issued by the Head Master, Panchayat Union Higher Elementary School, Melmanalur. The genuineness of the said certificate was verified and it appears that the District Educational Officer of the area stated that the certificate was bogus. This resulted in a charge memo being issued by the first respondent, dated 04.12.1996, and the explanation offered by the first respondent being not satisfactory, the petitioner appointed an enquiry officer and the enquiry was proceeded ex-parte and a report was submitted on 07.02.1997, holding that the charges were proved. Based on that, a second show cause notice was issued proposing to dismiss the first respondent from service. The reply submitted by the first respondent was found to be not satisfactory and the petitioner passed an order dated 21.04.1997, dismissing the first respondent from service. The first respondent raised the dispute before the Tribunal and the Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal and directed the petitioner to reinstate the first respondent in service with backwages and continuity of service. Challenging the said award, the petitioner/Board has filed this Writ Petition.

Before, going into the factual contentions raised by either side, it is necessary to consider the scope and jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ of Certiorari in cases involving orders passed by the Labour Court and quasi-judicial authorities. The Constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Others, , while considering this aspect held as hereunder:--

"...................... A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or Tribunals; these are cases where orders are passed by inferior Courts or Tribunals without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdictions. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it 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 principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged ini proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised."

The decision of the Hon''ble Constitution Bench was subsequently followed in several decisions and also reiterated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the latest decision in Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1 Panipat (Haryana), .

Bearing the above legal principle in mind, this Court proceeds to examine the impugned award. Before the Labour Court, the first respondent workman did not lead any oral evidence, but 17 documents were marked as Exhibits W1 to W17. On the side of the petitioner Board one Mr. R. Sampathkumar was examined as MW-1 and 16 documents were marked as Exhibits M1 to M16.

The Labour Court framed three questions for consideration, namely, (i) whether the domestic enquiry conducted was fair and proper; (ii) whether the findings recorded by the enquiry officer that the charge against the first respondent is proved, is correct or not; (iii) whether the first respondent is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Labour Court took into consideration the various decisions and held that though the entire disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated pursuant to a communication sent by the educational authorities, the same was not established before the Labour Court in the manner known to law.

Admittedly, the communication from the educational authorities is a material which is adverse and detrimental to the case of the first respondent. Therefore, when the first respondent puts the same to challenge, it is incumbent upon the Board to have produced evidence for admitting the said document as an exhibit before the Court. Further, the Labour Court considered the effect of the certificate and has given cogent reasons as to why the contention raised by the petitioner Board cannot be accepted.

As pointed out by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, it is not a case where the findings of fact is based on no evidence nor there is any error of law committed by the Labour Court and pointed out by the petitioner nor it is the case of the petitioner that the Labour Court erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence. Further as pointed out by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be cannot be corrected while exercising Writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner has not made any case for interference with the award passed by the Labour Court.

In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.