AMITABH CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the Management of the Bokaro Steel Plant is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant 'swrit application, being W.P. (L) No. 2690 of 2003, with the observation that the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not required to re -appraise the entire evidence and record a finding which was different from that of the Labour Court. Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

(2.) BEFORE we proceed further, it may be useful to indicate that Rashtriya Congress Shramik Sangh, Bokaro Steel City raised an industrial dispute on behalf of the respondent, Shri Vidya Sagar Tiwary, regarding his status as an employee on daily wages of the Bokaro Steel Sports and Recreation Council and as to whether he was an employee of the Bokaro Steel Plant. The dispute was ultimately referred to the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City by the State of Bihar, Department of Labour, Employment and Training through Notification dated 1st March, 1993. The terms of the reference were as follows :

(3.) APART from the above, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned advocate, appearing for the Management of the Bokaro Steel Plant referred to certain decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court, mainly the case of Dr. Chanchal Goel (Mrs) V/s. State of Rajasthan, - - - - , wherein while considering the case of appointment of a lady doctor on a temporary basis for a period of six months or till the availability of the candidate selected by PSC, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the fact that the appellant had rendered 28 years of service, unless the initial recruitment is regularised, the appellant 'sservices could not be regularised, Reliance was also placed on another decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Umarani V/s. Registrar, Co -operative Societies and Ors., reported in AIR 2004 SC 4504, wherein also the Hon ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed that, where a person 'sinitial appointment was not regular, the Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India on mere sympathy, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan submitted that having regard to the stringent note of caution, which has been expressed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, no amount of continuous service for a long period would be of any avail to the private respondent, in the absence of regular appointment at the initial stage. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan submitted that the learned Single Judge had no right to consider the award in detail and had accordingly chosen not to interfere on the ground that an award could not be challenged in a writ proceeding in a manner where evidence would have to be re -appraised, unless of course there was any element of mala fide or perversity. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan urged that the very basis of the award passed by the Labour Court was erroneous and as a result the award stood vitiated and was liable to set aside alongwith the judgment of the learned Single Judge.