Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.71 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S. Fateh Chand vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Anr. on 16 January, 2012
49) Therefore, in absence of any cogent credible evidence on record, this
Court cannot presume that the workman had left the services of
management and reliance in this regard is placed in the judgment of M/s
Fateh Chand Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & Am: 2012 LLR 468
Delhi wherein the the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed that the
management has to bring on record sufficient material to show that the
employee has abandoned the service and abandonment cannot be
attributed to the employee without there being-sufficient evidence and
that on failure to report for duty, the management has to call upon the
employee and if he refuses to report, then an enquiry is required to be
ordered against him and accordingly action taken. In the absence of
anything placed on record by the petitioner management, no presumption
against the workman can be drawn and in the aforesaid case, it was held
to be a case of violation of Section 25F of the Act.
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.
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 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:
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.
Section 11 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Dinesh Kumar And Ors vs Central Public Works Department And Ors on 16 October, 2023
11. The legal position is well settled that in these proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot interfere with
finding/s of facts rendered by a labour court unless the same are wholly
unsupported by evidence, arbitrary or perverse in nature. A Division Bench
of this Court in Dinesh Kumar and Ors. vs. Central Public Works
Department and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6518 took note of the legal
position enunciated by the Supreme Court in this regard as under: -