Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.72 seconds)Blue vs S on 7 October, 2008
Shri Banatwala has further submitted that the prayer in this
petition is confined only to quashing and setting aside the impugned
ex parte award and order in the restoration application, and for a
further direction to the Labour Court for hearing the reference
(LCV) No. 271/1998 afresh after affording an opportunity of leading
evidence to both the sides. Shri Banatwala under the instructions of
his client petitioner made a statement at the Bar that the
petitioner is ready & willing to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two
lacs only) before the Labour Court and the same shall be permitted
to be withdrawn by the respondent in case this Court is inclined to
accept the submission for reopening the case. Shri Banatwala further
submitted that depositing of the amount of Rupees two lacs is by way
of cost and even if the reference is allowed to be reopened and
decided on merits the said amount shall not be adjusted or subjected
to the outcome of the Reference. Shri Banatwala further submitted
that the ex-parte award deserved to be quashed and set aside and the
restoration application ought to have been decided in light of the
submissions made in the written statement. Shri Banatwala in support
of his submissions has relied upon decisions of the Apex Court in
case of KISHORE KUMAR KHAITAN & ANR v. PRAVEEN KUMAR SINGH,
reported in AIR 2006 SC 1474, on observation made in para-12 with
regard to power exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution and
submitted that in a given case interference in finding of fact if
taken in an improper manner is also warranted.
Food Corporation Of India vs Central Government Industrial ... on 25 February, 2009
and "jurisdiction angle" principle by which only an award could be touched. If the
regularization is done on breach of those settled legal position, surely it is coming
within the ambit of error in law. Writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is similar to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India
could be invoked when Court below comes to a finding of fact by asking itself a
wrong question or approaches the question in an improper manner and the said
findings cannot be said to be one rendered with jurisdiction, which is amenable
to under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and even failure to render
necessary finding to support its order would also be a jurisdictional error liable to
be corrected in an application under Article 227. Reliance is placed to the
judgment passed in the case Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr. Vs. Praveen Kumar
Singh, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 312.
1