- (1.) In the present writ petition the workman has challenged the award dated 9.2.1999 (Annexure P1) passed by the Labour Court, whereby the reference has been answered against the petitioner, and it was held that the workman was a seasonal worker and his services were dispensed with as paid-off due to the closure of the crushing season 1986-87 on 20.5.1987. Thus, termination of his services does not amount to retrenchment, therefore, while dispensing with his services on the said date, the management was not required to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). However, it has been observed that if the workman was still willing to work as seasonal worker with the respondent management, he may move an application in writing to the management for his employment in the next season i.e. 1999-2000.
(2.) Before the Labour Court, though the workman had admitted that he was working as seasonal worker and was paid off due to the closure of the crushing season on 20.5.1987 yet he had taken the stand that when the next season started in the year 1987-88 he had approached the management for employment but the management did not permit him to join. On this issue, the Labour Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties and the statement made by the workman, has recorded a finding of fact that the workman himself had not approached the management in the next crushing season for the job because he had started his own business. In this regard the Labour Court relied upon the evidence produced by the management which indicates that in the session 1988-89 and 1990-91 the workman himself had taken the contract as Cane Purchasing Agent from the management. After taking into consideration those documentary evidence, the Labour Court has recorded the aforesaid finding while disbelieving the solitary statement of the workman, and it was found that the workman himself had not reported to the management for the job in the subsequent crushing season. In my opinion, the said finding of fact has been recorded by the Labour Court on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties and the same cannot be said to be perverse. Thus, I do not find any ground to interfere in the said finding of fact in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. In Syed Yakoob Versus K.S. Radhakrishnan and others, 1964 AIR(SC) 477 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. The finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court as a result of appreciation of evidence cannot be re-opened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected, but not an error of fact, howsoever grave it may be.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid finding, the termination of the services of the petitioner as paid off does not amount to retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act and the management was not required to follow Section 25F of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Versus Ram Kishan and others, 1996 AIR(SC) 332 which was followed subsequently in Bhogpur Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. Versus Harmesh Kumar, 2007 AIR(SC) 288 has held that when the services of the workman are dispensed with consequent to closure of the season, the same does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act and in that eventuality the management is not required to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. In the present case, it has been found as a fact that in the next crushing season the petitioner did not report to the management for the job and he started doing his own business.;