Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"8. We are of the view that the High Court has not transgressed the limitations inherent in the grant of the writ of Certiorari. The High Court had rightly perceived the patent illegality in the impugned award warranting interference in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The High Court is right in pointing out that the material evidence especially the admissions of the witness examined on behalf of the Management were not considered at all. Moreover, the conclusions reached are wholly perverse and do not reasonably follow from the evidence on record. For instance, the fact that no appointment letters were issued or filed does not possibly lead to the conclusion that the Management's version must be true. Similarly, if the workers unions had taken the stand that ante-dated appointment letters were issued describing the employees as trainees after the dispute had arisen, it is difficult to comprehend how the would demolish the case the union that the concerned persons were really employed as workmen (helpers) but not as trainees. The industrial Court makes a bald observation that there was no satisfactory evidence on record to suggest that these persons were employed by the respondents as 'regular employees at any point of time. This bald conclusion/observation, as rightly point but by the High Court, ignores the material evidence on record. In fact, the evidence has not been adverted to at all while discussing the issues. There was total non-application of mind on the part of the Tribunal to the crucial evidence. The Management's witness categorically stated that the concerned workers were engaged in production of goods and that no other workmen were employed for production of goods. In fact, one of the allegations of the Management was that they adopted go- slow tactics and did not turn out sufficient work. According to the industrial Court, the fact that the 'trainees' were employed for performing the regular nature of work would not by itself make them workmen. The question then is, would it lead to an inference that they were trainees ? The answer must be clearly in the negative. No evidence whatsoever was adduced on behalf of the Management' to show that for more than one and half years those persons remained as 'trainees' in the true sense of the term. It is pertinent to not the statement of the Management's witness that in June-July, 1989, the Company did not have any permanent workmen and all the persons employed were trainees. It would be impossible to believed that the entire production activity was being carried on with none other than the so-called trainees. If there were trainees, there should have been trainers too. The Management' evidently came forward with a false plea dubbing the employees/workmen as trainees so as to resort to summary termination and deny the legitimate employees/workmen as trainees so as to resort to summary termination and deny the legitimate benefits. On the facts and evidence brought on record, the conclusion was inescapable that the appellant-employer resorted to unfair labour practice. There would have been travesty of justice if the High Court declined to interfere with the findings arbitrarily and with reasonable basis reached by the Industrial Court......"