Madras High Court
Eifco Oil Engine Industries, ... vs Labour Court, Coimbatore And Another on 21 February, 1990
Equivalent citations: (1992)IILLJ293MAD
Author: A.S. Anand
Bench: A.S. Anand
JUDGMENT Anand, C.J.
1. Against the award of the Labour Court in Industrial Dispute No. 156 of 1980 the appellant herein filed Writ Petition No. 3686 of 1982. Ale writ petition was dismissed with costs by the learned Single Judge of this Court on July 10, 1984. Hence this appeal.
2. Before the Labour Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant herein that the appellant factory had in point of fact been closed. That plea did not find favour with the Labour Court and it was held that there was no closure at all factually, and that the appellant-industry was carring on the undertaking under another name as Indo Feb Industries. Ale Labour Court, in its award extracted some of the features which went to establish, in its opinion, that the appellant-industry had not closed and was, in fact, being carried on under another name. Some of these features which were noticed by the Labour Court were the Indo Feb Industries was using the same machinery and manufacturing the same oil engines under the same brand name. It was also found that the telephone number, the power connection and the water connection of the appellant-industry were being used by Indo Feb Industries. Even the shed alloted in the name of the appellant was being used by the 10 lndo Feb Industries and M.W. 1 was the Chief Executive of both the Industries. Certain other features were also projected to show that the appellant industries was being run under the name of Indo Feb Industries and that there had been no closure at all, in fact. Before the learned Single Judge an attempt was made on behalf of the appellant to question the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge found that there was no case made out for interference with the finding of fact since it was not that the finding recorded by the Labour Court was either based on inadmissible evidence or that any admissible evidence had been shut out.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that on the basis of the material which was available before the Labour Court and from which certain inferences have been drawn, it is possible to contend that on a reappraisal of the evidence, another finding is also possible. We are afraid that we cannot, while exercising the appellate powers in the writ appeal, interfere with any such finding of the Labour Court only on the ground that on the basis of the material and the evidence before it, another view was also possible. The limitation for exercise of the writ jurisdiction in respect of matters based on findings of fact are too well known to be repeated. It Is not possible to say on the basis of the materials which were laid before the Labour Court that the finding recorded by it is per se perverse or that no reasonable man could have arrived at the finding on the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the finding recorded by the Labour Court and upheld by the learned Single Judge, does not call for any interference by this appellate Bench. The learned Single Judge, in the circumstances, rightly dismissed the writ petition and for what has been noticed by the learned Single Judge and noticed by us as above, we find no merits in this appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs so far as this appeal is concerned.