Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition by the U. P. State Electricity Board it's establishment at Bareilly, challenges the award of the Labour Court, Bareilly, adjudicating reference No. 87 of 1986 in the matter relating to the workman Rakesh Kumar. The impugned award is dated 27th April, 1987, and appended as annexure '1' to the writ petition.
(2.) THE facts which are in issue and as noticed from the record of the petition are that Rakesh Kumar worked as a tube well pump operator in Bareilly with the Board between the [period 17th April, 1981 to 1st March, 1985. THE facts in issue are on record. THE facts on which parties are at issue are that Rakesh Kumar was not the workman of the Board but had been engaged on duties as a tube well pump operator through an independent contractor. THE pleadings of the Board before the Labour Court are sketchy and devoid of details. THE written, statement of the Board dated 18th September, 1986 is annexure-3 to the partition and the rejoinder statement dated 15 January, 1987, annexure-5 to the petition. Thus, whatever case the Board placed before the Labour Court as an employer was adjudicated upon. In the written statement the only pleading taken is that the respondent workman discharged work through the agency of an independent contractor, he was not in the employment of the Board, and the question of putting an end to his service does not arise. Beyond this, no facts have been given in the written statement. THE rejoinder statement gives no details of the period of employment during which the contractor may have taken work from the workman concerned. Thus, the facts which were presented by the Board before the Labour Court were as vague as the pleadings of the employer. The arguments made before the High Court were not taken in pleadings before the Labour Court, nor taken as submissions in the grounds of objection in the writ petition. Never-the-less the Court has permitted the arguments to be raised as legal pleas. The contention is that as the workman was an employee of an independent contractor, his contract of service is regulated by the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970, and consequently under the law, it is not open for this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India to look into the nature and duration of the contract. For this purposes cases were cited by learned counsel for the Board. The one on which emphasis was laid, is the matter of Dena Nath v. National Fertilizers Ltd , 1992 (64) FLR 39 (SC(. The legal argument which has been .developed can be considered by this Court provided a base has been laid by the Board as an employer In the pleadings before the Labour Court so as to suggest clearly and without doubt that its contention was a subject matter of consideration in the reference, under adjudication. These submissions on facts were not before the Labour Court. The submission, in effect, that; matters relating to an employment of a workman by a contractor under (the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1979 can not be the subject matter of a fact finding enquiry on the relationship between master and, servant under a petition under article 226. i.e. a writ petition, is correct. But, the argument has been torn out of its context in, reference to the case cited in Dena Nath v. National Fertilizers Ltd. (supra).
(3.) IN the case cited at the Bar the facts were in fact being considered in a matter arising out of a writ petition under article 226, when they ought to have been adjudicated before an appropriate forum, thus, the decision in je Dena Nath v. National Fertilizers Ltd (supra). It is in this context that the Supreme Court observed "it is not for the High Court to inquire into the question and decide whether the employment of contract labour in any process, operation or in any other work, in any establishment should be abolished or not" The case before this Court is entirely on another context. The High Court, as a court of first resort,, is not examining the relationship of master and servant, as this aspect has already been all issue before the Labour Court and adjudicated. Before any Segal submission is considered by the Court, the facts on record must cot be ignored and need to be kept in mind. If upon the totality of the circumstances, the award of the Labour Court can be sustained, then it would not be appropriate for the High Court to use a writ of certiorari only because another view may be possible. The scope of writ of a certiorari while examining the decision of an quasi judicial tribunal is not to impose one view over another when the decision of a tribunal, under judicial review, may not be incorrect. ;