LAKSHMI PRECISION SCREWS LIMITED Vs. RAM BHAGAT
LAWS(SC)-2002-8-62
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
August 13,2002
LAKSHMI PRECISION SCREWS LIMITED
Appellant
VERSUS
RAM BAHAGAT
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF WEST BENGAL HABIB MOHAMMAD STATE OF HYDERABAD STATE OF MYSORE VS. ANWAR ALI SARKAR:ANWAR ALI SARKAR [REFERRED]SYED YAKOOB VS. K S RADHAKRISHNAN [REFERRED]
D K YADAV VS. J M A INDUSTRIES LIMITED [REFERRED]
UPTRON INDIA LIMITED VS. SHAMMI BHAN [REFERRED]
P G I OF M E AND RESERCH CHANDIGARH VS. RAJ KUMAR [REFERRED]
PUNJAB AND SIND BANK VS. SAKATTAR SINGH [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
UNION OF INDIA VS. BALWAN SAUDA [LAWS(MPH)-2006-5-57] [REFERRED TO]GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY, AMRITSAR VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, AMRITSAR [LAWS(P&H)-2015-2-758] [REFERRED TO]
KAMNI TRIPATHI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-3-131] [REFERRED TO]
V C BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY VS. SHRIKANT [LAWS(SC)-2006-5-56] [REFERRED TO]
RULDA RAM VS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, PATIALA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2009-7-276] [REFERRED TO]
S N GOSWAMI VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT-II AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2009-7-305] [REFERRED]
CHANDER KANT VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(P&H)-2009-8-316] [REFERRED]
SAHDEO KUMAR JALESHWAR MAHTO VS. STATE OF JHARKH [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-5-87] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D. PUBLIC HEALTH BRANCH AND ORS. VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2009-8-195] [REFERRED TO]
NIKHIL CHANDRA ROY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2015-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
F A AHMEDABABI VS. DHARAM ESTATES AND INVESTMENTS LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2006-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
DEVIDAS KHANDERAO DESHMUKH VS. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO OPERATIVE COTTON GROWERS MARKETING FEDERATIVE LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2004-1-52] [REFERRED TO]
S A MUKUND VS. GANPATI URBAN CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2003-8-81] [REFERRED TO]
ALLAHABAD BANK VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(PAT)-2019-5-89] [REFERRED TO]
ANOOP SHARMA VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION [LAWS(SC)-2010-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
A RAVI VS. CHAIRMAN [LAWS(MAD)-2010-7-68] [REFERRED TO]
R. KALIANNAN VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2014-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR SINGH VS. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED [LAWS(UTN)-2012-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
SHIB CHARAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2013-8-97] [REFERRED TO]
MATAM GANGABHAVANI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2022-1-52] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD. VS. ARUN KUMAR AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-4-112] [REFERRED TO]
LOGITRONICS (P) LTD VS. RAMESH KUMAR SOOD [LAWS(DLH)-2020-10-154] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT V AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-5-190] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-5-260] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH MOTORS VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT I [LAWS(ALL)-2003-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA PAL SHUKLA VS. LABOUR COURT V KANPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2007-1-174] [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI VS. SURESH CHAND [LAWS(DLH)-2006-12-18] [REFERRED TO]
PONNAMMA THOMAS VS. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER [LAWS(KER)-2017-2-191] [REFERRED TO]
MALTI DEVI VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2003-1-145] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KRISHNA NEEMA VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2004-10-41] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD SAGIR VS. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD [LAWS(MPH)-2013-2-102] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR FOOD AND SUPPLIES VS. PARKASH SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2011-11-13] [REFERRED TO]
HAKAM ALI VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT [LAWS(P&H)-2010-12-88] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA KUMAR TIWARI VS. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2012-6-72] [REFERRED]
Puratchi Tahalaivar MGR Transport Corporation LTD VS. Presiding Officer Principal Labour Court [LAWS(MAD)-2003-10-192] [REFERRED TO]
PURATCHI TALAIVAR MGR TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. INDUSTRIES TRIBUNAL [LAWS(MAD)-2003-10-209] [REFERRED TO]
Sri Jyoti Prasad Roy VS. State of Orissa [LAWS(ORI)-2011-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
MARIYYAPPA VS. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO OP SOCIETIES [LAWS(KAR)-2003-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
ANOOP SINGH DIED VS. CHAIRMAN A P S E B [LAWS(APH)-2004-10-27] [REFERRED TO]
D C M LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2002-9-213] [REFERRED TO]
MAGASVARGIYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA AND ORS. VS. BHAUSAHEB SONAJI KAKADE AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-5-24] [REFERRED TO]
HARISH TANDON VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-256] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMA DWIVEDI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2008-7-58] [REFERRED TO]
MYLSAMY N POLLACHI VS. CHERAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED COIMBATORE [LAWS(MAD)-2004-2-235] [REFERRED TO]
G.S. SANDHU VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT PATIALA [LAWS(P&H)-2006-7-614] [REFERRED TO]
Management of National Cooperative Sugar Mills LTD VS. Presiding Officer Labour Court [LAWS(MAD)-2004-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN TIMES LIMITED VS. ARUN KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2010-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA PRAKASH PANDEY VS. BHILAI REFRACTORIES LTD [LAWS(CHH)-2006-3-45] [REFERRED TO]
MEENAKSHI SUBRAMANIYA IYER VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2016-1-77] [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD VS. U P RAJYA SETU NIGAM S KARAMCHARI SANGH [LAWS(SC)-2004-2-142] [REFERRED TO]
ANILKUMAR K V VS. KERALA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [LAWS(KER)-2007-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR CAUSTIC AND CHEMICAL LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(JHAR)-2003-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(P&H)-2011-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
S SEETHARAMA RAO VS. SECRETARY [LAWS(KAR)-2003-8-36] [REFERRED TO]
GEETA GULATI VS. CHAIRMAN MAHARISHI SHIKSHA SANSTHAN [LAWS(MPH)-2004-11-73] [REFERRED TO]
UTI ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ALL INDIA UNIT TRUST EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION [LAWS(BOM)-2017-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Banerjee, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Relying upon the well-accepted and settled principles of law as regards the norm of interference with the order of inferior Tribunals, the High Court negated the plea of the Appellant herein that Certified Standing Order being a part of the conditions of service, ought to be strictly interpreted and there is no scope of reading into the same, some other element. It is in this score the decision of this Court in Syed Yakoob (Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors. AIR 1964 SC 477) ought to be noticed. This Court in Yakoob's decision stated:
"7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or tribunals : "these are cases where orders are passed by inferior Courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the disputes is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however, grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. 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 Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised".
(3.)The decision in Syed Yakoob (supra) stands considered in a recent judgment of this Court in P.G.I. of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh vs. Raj Kumar (2001) 2 SCC 54, wherein this Court in paragraph 9 stated as below:
"9. The Labour Court being the final Court of facts came to a conclusion that payment of 60% wages would comply with the requirement of law. The finding of perversity or being erroneous or not in accordance with law shall have to be recorded with reasons in order to assail the finding of the Tribunal or the Labour Court. It is not for the High Court to go into the factual aspects of the matter and there is an existing limitation on the High Court to that effect. In the event, however, the finding of fact is based on any misappreciation of evidence, that would be deemed to be an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. The law is well settled to the effect that finding of the Labour Court cannot be challenged in a proceeding in a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Labour Court was insufficient or inadequate though, however, perversity of the order would warrant intervention of the High Court. The observation, as above, stands well settled since the decision of this Court in Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan (AIR 1964 SC 477)."
(2.)Relying upon the well-accepted and settled principles of law as regards the norm of interference with the order of inferior Tribunals, the High Court negated the plea of the Appellant herein that Certified Standing Order being a part of the conditions of service, ought to be strictly interpreted and there is no scope of reading into the same, some other element. It is in this score the decision of this Court in Syed Yakoob (Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors. AIR 1964 SC 477) ought to be noticed. This Court in Yakoob's decision stated:
"7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or tribunals : "these are cases where orders are passed by inferior Courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the disputes is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however, grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. 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 Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised".
(3.)The decision in Syed Yakoob (supra) stands considered in a recent judgment of this Court in P.G.I. of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh vs. Raj Kumar (2001) 2 SCC 54, wherein this Court in paragraph 9 stated as below:
"9. The Labour Court being the final Court of facts came to a conclusion that payment of 60% wages would comply with the requirement of law. The finding of perversity or being erroneous or not in accordance with law shall have to be recorded with reasons in order to assail the finding of the Tribunal or the Labour Court. It is not for the High Court to go into the factual aspects of the matter and there is an existing limitation on the High Court to that effect. In the event, however, the finding of fact is based on any misappreciation of evidence, that would be deemed to be an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. The law is well settled to the effect that finding of the Labour Court cannot be challenged in a proceeding in a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Labour Court was insufficient or inadequate though, however, perversity of the order would warrant intervention of the High Court. The observation, as above, stands well settled since the decision of this Court in Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan (AIR 1964 SC 477)."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.