- (1.) This letters patent appeal has been filed by the appellant-workman aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 16.10.2002 in CWP No. 6063 of 1987. The appellant joined the respondent- management as Milling Man on 12.9.1981. It has been further alleged that on 13.9.1982, he was detained in the office and threatened to submit his resignation. On his refusal he was removed from the job on 13.9.1982 and was not allowed to join the duties from 14.9.1982. On conciliation proceedings having failed, the industrial dispute regarding termination of the services of the workman was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication by the State Government. The Labour Court passed an award on 23.4.1987 holding that the workman was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. Aggrieved by the said award, the management filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia praying for setting aside the award.
(2.) After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record the learned Single Judge held that the Labour Court award could not be sustained. However, in view of the fact that the workman-respondent No. 1 had been working with the petitioner for more than ten years it was held that it would not be fair to remove the workman. Consequently, it was directed that the workman would not be entitled to any benefit under the award of the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the workman has relied upon para 7 of the Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob v. Radhakrishanan and others, 1964 AIR(SC) 477, which reads as follows :- "7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 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 dispute 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 Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishque, 1955 AIR(SC) 233 ; Nagendra Nath v. Commr. of Hills Division, 1958 AIR(SC) 398 and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh,1960 AIR(SC) 168". On the basis of the aforesaid judgment, it was contended before us that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without returning a finding that the award of the Labour Court suffers from perversity, the learned Single Judge could not have set aside the award of the Labour Court.
(3.) We have heard the arguments at length advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.;