Pramod Pandey vs Regional Director, Esi Corporation on 26 September, 2000
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further submitted that not only that the employer has to show that the termination of the service was legal, it is further necessary to demonstrate that it was justified. Reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Agra Electric Supply Company Ltd. v. Workmen, 1983 (1) SCC 436 : 1983-I-LLJ-304 and to the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Surat Manila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Mamtaben Mahendrabhai Joshi, 2002 (2) GLR 603. As held by the Apex Court, when the reference is comprehensive enough to cover both the concepts, legality and justification, it is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to investigate whether the retrenchment is legal and, if legal, whether it is also justified and that the terms of reference should be construed liberally and the dispute should be determined in the context of social justice. In the facts of the present case, the justification of termination is so obvious that it requires no further probe into the matter. It has already been observed that the termination after the efflux of the period of the contract which was not extended on account of failure of the petitioners to pass the examination did not suffer from any arbitrariness and the renewal of the period from time to time did not amount to any unfair labour practice or victimisation. The petitioners having failed to clear the examination, the consequence compelled by their failure was their non-continuance especially when the candidates for regular appointment pending which the said ad hoc appointments were made, were available for appointment. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation, in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not normally examine the findings of the Tribunal unless demonstrated to be perverse and the Tribunal, in the present case, has on the cogent reasons discussed in the impugned Award, come to the conclusion that the breaks had not been artificially introduced to give rise to any inference of unfair labour practice and there was justification for non-continuance of the petitioners on account of their failure to pass the prescribed examination. No ground is, thus, made out calling for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.