Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) -The petitioner employer aggrieved by the award of the labour court (1), U. P., Kanpur dated 20th December, 1997, passed in adjudication Case No. 164 of 1996 has approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE following dispute was referred to before the labour court for adjudication : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... After receipt of the reference, the labour court issued notices to both the parties, namely, employer as well as the employee workman, who have put in appearance and filed written statements, rejoinder-affidavits and adduced their oral as well as documentary evidence. In short, the case set up by the workman before the labour court is that he was employed by the employer as labour and because of his efficiency in work, the employer had given the job of fitter and when the employer has refused to give him designation and pay of fitter, he filed application under the Payment of Wages Act being P.W. Case No. 569 of 1990. Because of this, the employer annoyed with the workman concerned and they falsely implicated the workman in the case of theft and retrenched him from service. Aggrieved by the same, the workman raised a dispute, which is referred to the labour court (2), Kanpur, which was registered as adjudication case No. 5 of 1982, and vide its award directed the employer to reinstate the workman concerned with full back wages and continuity of service. The aforesaid award of the labour court has been challenged by the employer before this Court and in terms of the interim order passed by this Court, the workman has been reinstated and has been paid the back wages. The aforesaid writ petition is still pending. The workman has further stated that on 18th June, 1993 since he wanted to go the head office of the establishment, the watchman Jagannath refused to permit him to enter in the premises, whereas other workmen were allowed to enter and when the workman enquired from the said watchman about the said fact, Jagannath told him that other workmen are entering after paying money and he will allow to enter him after receiving some money. When the workman had resisted, Jagannath fall upon him and started abusing. Ultimately scuffle has taken place, which has resulted into marpeet etc. When the workman wanted to get an F.I.R. lodged, the police has refused to lodge F.I.R. and returned back the workman concerned. The workman has further stated that he has also applied for voluntary retirement under the "Voluntary Retirement Scheme", but the employers in order to deny the benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme were not passing any orders and with effect from 19th June, 1993, his services have been terminated illegally. The employers, on the other hand, have stated that the services of the workman were not terminated with effect from 19th June, 1993, therefore, the instant reference is bad in the eye of law, as the services of the workman were terminated on the basis of his resignation, which was given by him on 19th June, 1993 and was accepted by the employers on 21st June, 1993, therefore, no case for interference is made out and the reference should be answered against the workman.
(3.) THE parties have adduced their evidence in support of their case and the labour court after considering the material evidence on record has found that the case set up by the workman is supported by the evidence and recorded a finding that the termination of services of the workman concerned with effect from 19th June, 1993 is illegal and not justified. THE labour court therefore, directed the reinstatement of the workman concerned with continuity of service and full back wages. It is this award, which is questioned by the employers by means of present writ petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-employer questioned the aforesaid award on the ground that the labour court has failed to appreciate the evidence before it. Learned counsel for the employer tried to take me through different statements and assail the findings that the findings arrived at by the labour court are erroneous. Without entering into the question even assuming, though it is not correct, that the labour court may have come to the conclusion, where two views were possible on the same set of evidence, but this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the labour court. Since nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that the findings recorded by the labour court is either perverse, or suffers from the error, must less manifest error of law, the argument advanced on behalf of the employers is rejected.;