Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)Dinesh Kumar And Ors vs Central Public Works Department And Ors on 16 October, 2023
31. It would be apposite to advert to the decision of a Division Bench
of this Court in Dinesh Kumar v. Central Public Works Department
2023 SCC OnLine Del 6518 wherein the Court referred to various
decisions of the Apex Court to demarcate the jurisdiction/scope of
interference by this Court, in its exercise of powers under Articles 226-
227 of the Constitution of India, against an Award passed by an
Industrial Tribunal. In this regard, the Court observed as under:
Indian Overseas Bank vs I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers Union & Anr on 11 April, 2000
"17. The learned Single Judge seems to have
undertaken an exercise, impermissible for him in
exercising writ jurisdiction, by liberally
reappreciating the evidence and drawing
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:23.05.2025 W.P.(C) 414/2009 Page 13 of 19
16:02:56
conclusions of his own on pure questions of fact,
unmindful, though aware fully, that he is not
exercising any appellate jurisdiction over the
awards passed by a tribunal, presided over by a
judicial officer. The findings of fact recorded by a
fact-finding authority duly constituted for the
purpose and which ordinarily should be
considered to have become final, cannot be
disturbed for the mere reason of having been
based on materials or evidence not sufficient or
credible in the opinion of the writ court to
warrant those findings, at any rate, as long as
they are based upon some material which are
relevant for the purpose or even on the ground
that there is yet another view which can
reasonably and possibly be taken... ... The only
course, therefore, open to the writ Judge was to
find out the satisfaction or otherwise of the
relevant criteria laid down by this Court, before
sustaining the claim of the canteen workmen, on
the facts found and recorded by the fact-finding
authority and not embark upon an exercise of
reassessing the evidence and arriving at findings
of one's own, altogether giving a complete go-by
even to the facts specifically found by the Tribunal
below."
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd vs State Of Saurashtra on 23 November, 1956
In Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of
Saurashtra, 1957 SCR 152, the Supreme Court, once
again observed that where the Tribunal having
jurisdiction to decide a question comes to a finding of
fact, such a finding is not open to question under Article
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:23.05.2025 W.P.(C) 414/2009 Page 14 of 19
16:02:56
226, unless it could be shown to be wholly unsupported
by evidence.
Mangt.Of Madurantakam Co-Op.Sugar ... vs S.Viswanathan on 22 February, 2005
In Management of Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills
Limited v. S. Viswanathan, (2005) 3 SCC 193, the Apex
Court, held that the Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals
as the case be is the final court of facts, unless the same is
perverse or not based on legal evidence, which is when
the High Courts can go into the question of fact decided
by the Labour Court or the Tribunal. But before going
into such an exercise it is imperative that the High Court
must record reasons why it intends reconsidering a
finding of fact. In the absence of any such defect, the writ
court will not enter the realm of factual disputes and
finding given thereon.
Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others on 7 October, 1963
In a Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme
Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964
SC 477, the Apex Court has inter alia held as under:
Hari Vishnu Kamath vs Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others on 9 December, 1954
Similarly, if
a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that
would be regarded as an error of law which can
be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing
with this category of cases, however, we must
always bear in mind that a finding of fact
recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in
proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground
that the relevant and material evidence adduced
before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate
to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or
sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the
inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding
are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated
before a writ court. It is within these limits that
the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts
under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can
be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu
Kamath v. Syed Ahmed Ishaque, Nagendra Nath
Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and
Appeals, Assam, and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar
Singh.
Nagendra Nath Bora & Another vs The Commissioner Of Hills Divisionand ... on 7 February, 1958
Similarly, if
a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that
would be regarded as an error of law which can
be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing
with this category of cases, however, we must
always bear in mind that a finding of fact
recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in
proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground
that the relevant and material evidence adduced
before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate
to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or
sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the
inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding
are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated
before a writ court. It is within these limits that
the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts
under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can
be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu
Kamath v. Syed Ahmed Ishaque, Nagendra Nath
Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and
Appeals, Assam, and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar
Singh.
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Devi Dutt & Ors on 24 November, 2006
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana v. Devi Dutt, (2006) 13 SCC 32, has held that
the writ Court can interfere with the factual findings of
fact only if in case the Award is perverse; the Labour
Court has applied wrong legal principles; the Labour
Court has posed wrong questions; the Labour Court has
not taken into consideration all the relevant facts; or the
Labour Court has arrived at findings based upon
irrelevant facts or on extraneous considerations."
1