D.P. Kundu, J. - (1.) In this writ application the writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the company) has challenged the award dated 3rd November, 1989 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta in Reference No. 44/84 awarding that Rajia Devi (hereinafter referred to as the workman) be reinstated to her service with effect from 1-1-1983 with all service benefits from that date.
(2.) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour), by an order of reference dated 11th August, 1984 referred the following dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta for adjudication. "Whether the action of the Management of Pandaveswar Colliery of ECL in striking off the name of Smt. Rajia Devi from the rolls on 1-4-1975 without issuing a charge-sheet to hear and without conducting domestic enquiry, is justified If not to what relief the workmen concerned is entitled - Mr. Kalyan Bondhopadhyay appearing for the company argued the following points : 1. Finding of the Tribunal is based on no evidence. 2. Relevant facts have not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. 3. Tribunal did not give any reason why the management stand did not appeal to the Tribunal. 4. Tribunal's finding is based on surmise and conjecture. 5. No reason has been given except the recording of the evidence of the witnesses.
(3.) Before dealing with the points raised by the Id. Advocate for the company it is necessary to restate the scope of judicial review of this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction. In this context it is important to refer to the Supreme Court decision in Shri Sitararn Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (1990) 3 SCC 223 : (AIR 1990 SC 1277) . Supreme Court in Sitararn Sugar Company's case (supra) in paragraphs 49 and 50 of the Reported decision (SCC p. 252) observed as follows:- "49. Where a question of law is at issue, the Court may determine the rightness of the impugned decision on its own independent judgment. If the decision of the authority does not agree with that which the Court considers to be the right one the finding, of law by the authority is liable to be upset. Where it is a finding of fact, the Court examines only the reasonableness of the finding. When that finding is found to be rational and reasonably based on evidence, in the sense that all relevant material has been taken into account and no irrelevant material has influenced the decision, and the decision is one which any reasonably minded person, acting on such evidence, would have come to, then judicial review is exhausted even though the finding may not necessarily be what the Court would have come to as a trier of fact. Whether an order is characterised as legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial, or, whether it is a determination of law or fact, the judgment of the expert body, entrusted with power, is generally treated as final and the judicial function is exhausted when it is found to have "warrant in the record" and a rational basis in law : See Rochester Tel. Corp. v. United States . See also Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wesnesbury Corporation ." 50. As stated by Lord Hailshant of St. Marylebone L. C. (IIL) in Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans . "The function of the Court is to see that lawful authority is not abused by unfair treatment and not to attempt itself the task entrusted to that authority by the law The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorised by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eye of the Court." In the same case Lord Brightman says : "Judicial review, as the words imply is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made.";