Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.41 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
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
LPA 629/2023 Page 23 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:10.10.2023
11:53:57
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.
U.P. State Road Transport Corp vs Suresh Chand Sharma on 26 May, 2010
37. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has again placed reliance upon a
judgment delivered in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation
vs. Suresh Chand Sharma (supra). In the aforesaid case also, the passengers
who were found ticketless were not examined nor the cash was checked and,
in those circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that non-
examination of passengers and non-checking of cash cannot be ground to
give clean chit to an employee. This Court has carefully gone through the
aforesaid judgment. However, the fact remains that the Management's
witness himself before the Labour Court has stated categorically that he is
not in a position that the passengers who was travelling ticketless has put his
signature on the statement or not. In those circumstances, the Labour Court
has given a clean chit to the Workman. It is true that non-examination of
passenger and non-checking of cash is not a fatal defect. But in the present
case, whether the passengers were travelling ticketless as per the statement
which was produced in writing, was not established before the Labour
LPA 629/2023 Page 19 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:10.10.2023
11:53:57
Court, and, therefore, the judgment is again distinguishable on facts. Hence,
the question of interference in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case does not arise.
Section 32 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
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
LPA 629/2023 Page 23 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:10.10.2023
11:53:57
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
47. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Devi Dutt &
Ors., (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.
Mohd. Yunus vs Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors on 4 October, 1983
49. The supervisory jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India was discussed by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus
LPA 629/2023 Page 25 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:10.10.2023
11:53:57
v. Mohd. Mustaqim and Others, (1983) 4 SCC 566, whereby it was, inter
alia, held as under:
"7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High
Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to
seeing that an inferior court or tribunal functions within the
limits of its authority", and not to correct an error apparent on
the face of the record, much less an error of law. In this case
there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error
apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the
part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction
nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor
was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the
procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory
power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an
appellate court or tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the
evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or
tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the
decision."