Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Registrar Mehrishi Dayand vs Sanjay Kumar Dhobi And Anr on 19 March, 2012
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No.14055/2010 Registrar, Mahrishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer versus Sanjay Kumar Dhobi & anr 19.3.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr RA Katta for petitioner Mr Anand Sharma for respondent No.1 workman BY THE COURT:
By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the award dated 9.9.2009.
Learned counsel for petitioner management submits that there was no relation of employer and employee between the petitioner university and the respondent workman. In fact, petitioner never engaged the respondent workman rather he was engaged by a contractor. Ignoring the aforesaid aspect, impugned award has been passed, which deserves to be set aside.
Learned counsel for workman, on the other hand, submits that respondent falls in the definition of 'workman' as provided in the State of Rajasthan by amendment. The respondent workman was working in the petitioner university thus he falls within the definition of 'workman' and before termination, he had worked for more than 240 days in twelve calendar months rather he served for few years. The finding of fact has been recorded by the labour court holding it to be a case of violation of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent workman however, failed to support his writ petition challenging the award of compensation instead for reinstatement. Thus to that extent, the challenge of the award has been made by the respondent workman.
I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
The only issue raised by learned counsel for petitioner university to challenge the award is that respondent workman does not fall in the definition of 'workman'. It will be appropriate to extract the definition of "Workmen" as amended in Section 2(s) by the Rajaslhan Amendment Act which reads as under -
"Workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry (by an employer or by a Contractor in relation to the execution of his contract with such employer) to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceedings under this Act in relation to an indusrtial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissd, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dis rule, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dis rule, but does not include any such person....."
By this amendment, the definition of 'Workman' has been extended to such workmen who are employed by Contractor in relation to the execution of contractual work of such employer. This amendment was made in the year 1958.
Perusal of the definition quoted above reveals that if a person is employed through a contractor, he falls in the definition of 'workman'. In the aforesaid background, the plea raised by learned counsel for petitioner university cannot be accepted. If the respondent workman was engaged though a contractor then also he falls in the definition of 'workman' and petitioner university being principal employer becomes liable for all the consequences.
The respondent workman had produced material to prove his case however the petitioner university failed to produce complete material to make out their case. Learned labour court accordingly considered the matter and decided the reference.
In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any error or illegality in the award passed by the learned labour court so as to call for interference on the issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioner university. Even otherwise, this court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot sit as a court of appeal on the award passed by the labour court. My view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sadhana Lodh Vs National Insurance Company Limited & anr [2003 (3) SCC 524]. Therein, it was held in para 7 and 8 of the judgment -
7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.
8.For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that since the insurer has a remedy by filing an appeal before the High Court, the High Court ought not to have entertained the petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and for that reason, the judgment and order under challenge deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment and order under appeal. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, it would be open to the insurer to file an appeal if it is permissible under the law.
Perusal of the above quoted paras shows limited jurisdiction of this court to interfere in the order whereby finding of fact has been recorded. This is more so when I do not find any adversity in the finding of fact recorded by the labour court.
In view of aforesaid, writ petition so as the stay application found devoid of merit, hence, dismissed.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW