(12) Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar . In para 11 the Apex Court observed that the High Courts jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari though is limited, a writ of certiorari can be issued if there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record.
In Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar reported at (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 172, the Apex Court had noted that the workman had been appointed in violation of the rules at the instance of a Member of Legislative Assembly who was Minister at the relevant time, and that no such appointment could have been made. While allowing the appeal the Court, however, granted monetary compensation quantified at Rs.50,000/-. In para 12 of this judgment, the Court observed that the Labour Court and the High Court proceeded wrongly on the premise that the burden of proof to establish non-completion of 240 days of work within a period of twelve months preceding the termination, was on the management and that the burden was in fact on the workman. The Court also held that it is also a trite law that only because some documents have not been produced by the management, an adverse inference would not be drawn against the management.
So far as the judgment in the
case of Municipal Council, Sujanpur (supra) is concerned, the Supreme Court
has in fact found that since the provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act were
not complied with, the compensation was awarded in favour of the workmen.