EX ENGINEER, ELECTRIC Vs. FAYAZ AHMAD BABA
LAWS(J&K)-1999-12-20
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on December 31,1999

Ex Engineer, Electric Appellant
VERSUS
Fayaz Ahmad Baba Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS petition has been submitted for consideration by the Registrar Judicial without diarising the same, reason being the strike of the employees. Be registered and numbered in terms of High Court Rules. 1. The Authority under payment of Wages Act, Srinagar (for short Authority) having passed an award on 20/11/1999 against the Executive Engineer Electric Maintenance Division, Ganderbal (petitioner herein) has settled fact of employment, which is disputed through this writ petition and in this factual background, the jurisdiction of the Authority is questioned. No other point is canvassed.
(2.) WHETHER respondent has been in employment for the period, for which, wages have been allowed to the claimant, is purely a question of fact, which has to be examined in the light of evidence adduced and available, and in essence, the finding of fact is sought to be reversed through this writ petition, notwithstanding the fact that the factum of employment is admitted by the petitioner at page 2 of the writ petition, of course, for a few months only. Be that as it may, the question, which calls for an answer through this writ petition is: Whether a finding of fact can be disturbed in writ proceedings, when right of appeal is available?
(3.) AT the very outset, it needs to be noticed that the power of the court flows from the Constitution and there is nothing in the Constitution, which would debar the court from exercising the power unless a party has exhausted all alternative remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of the court and the court is competent to exercise the jurisdiction, where question of infringement of fundamental rights arises, provided the impugned order is without jurisdiction or is vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record or is contrary to natural justice, which is not true of the case in hand. It appears that the petitionerâ„¢s attempt is to involve the court in examining the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence, on the basis of which, finding of fact has been returned by the Authority. This contention necessitates reappraisal of the evidence, which is not possible in a writ petition. Moreso, the remedy of appeal being available to the petitioner, the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of the court can - not be extended to the extent of disturbing a finding of fact in writ proceeding. The question is answered accordingly.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.