Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasbir Singh vs Pout Chandigarh on 26 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156036
CWP-3583-2002 and other
Connected matters 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
295 (14 cases)
CWP-3583-2002
Date of Decision : 26.11.2024
JASBIR SINGH .... PETITIONER
V/S
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, U.T. CHANDIGARH AND
ANOTHER
.... RESPONDENTS
Sr. No. Case No.(O&M) Parties Name
2. CWP-17863-2002 JASBIR SINGH BAJWA V/S PRESIDING
OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, U.T.
CHANDIGARH AND ORS.
3. CWP-17873-2002 JAGDISH CHAND V/S PRESIDING
OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, U.T.
CHANDIGARH AND ORS.
4. CWP-17866-2002 Y.P.SINGH V/S PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT, U.T. CHANDIGARH
AND ANR
5. CWP-17867-2002 RAJ KUMAR V/S PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT, U.T. CHANDIGARH
AND ANR
6. CWP-293-2003 RAM KISHORE V/S PRESIDING
OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, U.T.
CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER
7. CWP-17862-2002 RAM NARAIN V/S PRESIDING
OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, U.T.
CHANDIGARH AND ORS
8. CWP-294-2003 S. K. SAINI V/S PRESIDING OFFICER,
1 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 28-11-2024 03:28:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156036
CWP-3583-2002 and other
Connected matters 2
LABOUR COURT, U.T. CHANDIGARH
AND ANOTHER
9. CWP-17865-2002 TEJ RAM V/S PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT, U.T. CHANDIGARH
AND ANR
10. CWP-3584-2002 JAWALA SINGH V/S PRESIDING
OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, U.T.
CHANDIGARH AND ANR.
11. CWP-17870-2002 HARISH CHANDER V/S PRESIDING
OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, U.T.
CHANDIGARH AND ANR
12. CWP-17864-2002 SHAM SINGH V/S PRESIDING
OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, U.T.
CHANDIGARH AND ORS
13. CWP-17871-2002 RAVI KUMAR GUPTA V/S PRESIDING
OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, U.T.
CHANDIGARH. AND ANR
14. CWP-17872-2002 RAGHBIR KAUR V/S P PRESIDING
OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, U.T.
CHANDIGARH AND ANR
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate
Ms. Kanchan Sindhu, Advocate
Ms. Parul Saini, Advocate
Mr. Abhay Chauhan, Advocate
Ms. Vamika Johar, Advocate
Ms. Parul Panchal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. P. K. Mutneja, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Akshay Goel, Advocate
Ms. Suverna Mutneja, Advocate
Mr. Guraman Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
2 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 28-11-2024 03:28:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156036
CWP-3583-2002 and other
Connected matters 3
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. By this common order, the above-noted petitions are hereby adjudicated as issues involved and prayer sought in all the petitions are common. For the sake of convenience and with the consent of parties, the facts are borrowed from CWP-3583-2002.
2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of award dated 08.10.2001 (Annexure P-7) whereby Labour Court has answered against him.
3. The respondent is a public limited company. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing drugs. It had one manufacturing unit at Chandigarh which was closed in 2004. The petitioner is its ex-worker.
4. The respondent engaged petitioner as badli worker. The respondent was having a large strength of workers and in case of any worker on leave, the badli workers were engaged. The name of petitioner was recorded in the list of badli workers. During 1991 to 1994, he was engaged for few days in every month. The respondent did not engage him after September' 1994 and he served demand notice on 29.02.1996. The matter came to be referred to Labour Court which vide impugned award dated 08.10.2001 dismissed his claim. The Labour Court has turned down claim of petitioner on the grounds namely (i) the petitioner has not completed 240 days during the preceding 12 months; (ii) he was not a regular worker but was engaged in place of a worker on leave, thus, 3 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 28-11-2024 03:28:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156036 CWP-3583-2002 and other Connected matters 4 he could not be treated as regular worker and (iii) he did not clear test conducted by management.
5. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate submits that no appointment letter was issued to workman and management during the course of proceedings before Labour Court produced fabricated appointment letters. The workman had worked for 240 days during 12 months preceding the date of his termination, thus, he was entitled to protection of Section 25-B read with Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act'). The protection of Section 25-F of ID Act is available to all the workers whether regular, contractual or casual. The petitioner's name was recorded in the list of badli workers and he was terminated because he along with other workers attempted to form a Union. The Labour Authorities did not register petitioner's Union because one officer of Labour department was having vested interest.
6. Per contra, Mr. Mutneja, Senior Advocate submits that the Labour Court has recorded categoric findings to the effect that the petitioner was a casual worker and was engaged as and when any worker proceeded on leave. The management conducted test for appointing him as a regular employee, however, he did not come forward. He was issued appointment letters as and when engaged. The Labour Court has considered appointment letters as well as record of leave vacancy.
7. I have heard the arguments of counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 28-11-2024 03:28:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156036 CWP-3583-2002 and other Connected matters 5
8. It is a settled law that High Court while adjudicating writ petition against award of Labour Court cannot act as Appellate Court. The Court cannot reappreciate evidence examined by Labour Court. The scope of interference in the orders passed by quasi-judicial authorities is very limited.
A Constitution Bench in Syed Yakoob Vs K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477 and a two judge bench of Supreme Court recently in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another Vs Bikartan Das and others 2023 SCC Online SC 996 have reminded us that there are two cardinal principles of law governing issuance of writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India i.e. (i) High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record; (ii) in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration 5 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 28-11-2024 03:28:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156036 CWP-3583-2002 and other Connected matters 6 and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not.
A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. Error of jurisdiction includes order by inferior court or tribunal without jurisdiction or in excess of it or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. 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 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, 6 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 28-11-2024 03:28:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156036 CWP-3583-2002 and other Connected matters 7 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 in 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 Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised.
9. In the case in hand, the Labour Court has rejected claim of petitioner on different grounds including non-completion of 240 days as required under Section 25-B read with 25-F of ID Act. The Labour Court has further observed that management time to time issued appointment letters and these appointment letters are bearing signatures of workman. As per appointment letters, specific period for which workman was employed is mentioned. The evidence suggest that he was appointed against leave vacancy. The management conducted test to make regular appointment, however, workman did not come forward.
10. The relevant extracts of findings recorded by Labour Court are reproduced as below :
"47. From the evidence available on the file, it is established that the workman was appointed against 7 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 28-11-2024 03:28:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156036 CWP-3583-2002 and other Connected matters 8 the leave vacancy. The management has placed on file the appointment letters issued to the workman. The appointment letters Ex.M-1 to Ex.M.22 are those bear the signature of the workman and the specific period which the workman was employed or engaged. No doubt the cross-examination the workman has denied that he was given appointment letters for a specific period but the documentary evidence produced by the management cannot be rebutted by the oral statement of the workman particularly when he was confronted with the signatures on the above said documents. He has not given any cogent and convincing explanation to his signatures appearing on the appointment letters Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-22. From these letters it is evident that the workman was appointed against the leave vacancy. The arguments of the learned representative for the workman cannot be accented that the workman was not appointed against the leave vacancy or was not a substitute or badli worker.
48. The management has also paced on file the details of the numbers of days the workman has worked with the management. The statement showing the details of the number of days the workman worked with the management Ex.M-23. This list gives the details of the number of days month wise and year wise for which the workman has worked. According to this document the workman has worked for 116 days during the year 1991 and 172 days during the year 1992, 207 days during the year 1993 and 175 days for details the year 1994. Ex.M-23 also gives and the name of the person who was on leave whose place the workman was appointed. So from these documents 8 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 28-11-2024 03:28:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156036 CWP-3583-2002 and other Connected matters 9 placed on file shows that the workman was working against the leave vacancy and as a daily wager basis. Attendance record of the workman has also been placed on the file by the management which is Ex.24 to 41 and similarly the copies of the wages register Ex.M-42 to Ex.M-44 and payment vouchers Ex.M-48 to Ex.M-50 respectively has been produced on the file by the management. The above referred documentary evidence led by the management clearly establishes that the workman has been paid for the days he has worked and he was working against the leave vacancy.. It is also the evident that the workman has not completed 240 days in calendar year and the services of the workman were never terminated by the management, as the appointment of the workman was one the leave vacancy, and that too for a specific period it cannot be said that the workman was terminated illegally. The contract of the service of the workman was not renewed because of the Joining of the person in whose place the workman Has appointed while he proceeded on leave.
49. X X X X
50. ......Otherwise also the son of Murari Lal has been made regular after adopting the proper procedure and ne has appeared in the test and qualified the test. The workman did not specific management intentionally avail this opportunity. The specific demand notice was also raised when the management has advertised permanent posts of the operators. The said resolution of the workman and other workers was rejected by the A.L.C. The 9 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 28-11-2024 03:28:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156036 CWP-3583-2002 and other Connected matters 10 workman was also asked to appear in the test during the pendency of the present reference also, but the workman did not appear in the test on the ground that there was earlier award of this court in which the operators were regularized without their appearing in the test. This claim of the workman is also falsified by the awards of this court given in the earlier case which is Ex.M-60 and Ex.M-61.
51. In these award it has specifically been held by this court that the selection of the persons who ever, be based on the seniority-cum-merit and the merit will be determined by considering the performance report, interview and test and if no suitable person is available from among the list. So, from this it is clear that for filling up the future vacancies the management will be free to employee a fresh person from outside this list. So, from this award it is clear that for filling the merit by considering the performance report, interview and test for selection of regular operators. The workman has failed to show any document which lays down that the operator can be appointed against permanent post without holding any test or interview. Sa non-performance of the workman in the test also leads to draw the conclusion that the workman not want did to claim permanent post through the regular procedure laid down in the standing orders.
(Emphasis supplied)"
11. From the perusal of findings recorded by Labour Court, it is evident that Labour Court has adverted to question of requirement of minimum 240 days work and concluded that workman had not worked 10 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 28-11-2024 03:28:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156036 CWP-3583-2002 and other Connected matters 11 for 240 days. The petitioner during the course of hearing attempted to produce few documents to prove that he had worked for 239½ days. This Court cannot re-appreciate evidence led by the parties. The Labour Court has appreciated evidence led by parties and thereafter concluded that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days during preceding 12 months. In any case, documents relied upon by petitioner are not apparently disclosing that the Labour Court has misread evidence or ignored the evidence, thus, this Court at this stage cannot disturb findings of Labour Court with respect to number of days of work of the petitioner.
12. The Labour Court has further found that the petitioner was engaged for a particular period. He was appointed against a worker on leave. The Labour Court has examined evidence led by management in the form of leave sought by regular workers, salary paid to petitioner, PF and ESI contribution as well as appointment letters issued to the petitioner. There is neither misreading of evidence nor ignoring of evidence led by the parties. This Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate evidence led by the parties. He was a badli worker and engaged as and when regular worker was on leave. There was no contract of regular employment. He was asked to appear for the test conducted by management, however, he did not take the test. He filed claim after almost two years which indicates his act and conduct. Had he been in dire necessity or deprived of employment, he must have approached authorities at the earliest.
11 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 28-11-2024 03:28:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156036 CWP-3583-2002 and other Connected matters 12
13. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error or manifest infirmity in the impugned award. The Labour Court has duly apprehended evidence on record and come to a possible view. The instant petitions deserve to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
26.11.2024 (JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
anju JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
12 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 28-11-2024 03:28:39 :::