- (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned award dated 26.5.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar, allowing the claim of the respondent workman and directing the petitioner Municipal Board to reinstate him with 50% of back wages from the date of reference till the date of Award.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that respondent-workman filed an application on 15.5.1990 (Annex.1) before the Chairman of the Board that he was qualified to be appointed on the post of Tax Assessor; post was lying vacant; thus he should be appointed. He was appointed on temporary basis, vide order dated 22.3.1991 (Annex.2), as a Tax Assessor by the Chairman of petitioner Municipal Board (for short, "the Board") for a period of one year, or till regularly selected candidate was made available. When the period of one year was likely to expire, the workman approached the Civil Court by filing Suit No.5/1992 and vide order dated 21.5.1992 (Annex.3), application filed by the workman under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed and the Board was directed not to remove the workman. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Board filed an appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 21.8.1993 (Annex.4). However, the Appellate Court directed not to remove the workman without following the procedure established by law. Services of the workman were terminated vide order dated 18.11.1994 (Annex.5). As in between the Labour Court, Bikaner had passed certain orders, it was directed that payment in accordance with law should be made to him. he was paid a sum of Rs.34,571/- which included one month's salary to the tune of Rs.4106/- in lieu of notice; Rs.7363/- as required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act, 1947") and Rs.31,668/- as directed by the Labour Court on his application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, 1947 and also a sum of Rs.2903/- as interest as directed by the Labour Court. Suit filed by the workman was dismissed by the Court vide judgment and order dated 26.5.1995 (Annex.9) as not maintainable. Workman raised an industrial dispute and vide order dated 7.8.95, the appropriate Government made a reference as to whether termination of his services w.e.f. 18.11.94 was justified and if not, to what relief he was entitled for. In pursuance of the said reference, workman filed the claim petition contending that he had been appointed in the Board vide order dated 22.3.1991 and inspite of the fact that he had completed more than 240 days in a calendar year counting backward from the date of termination, his services were terminated without complying with the provisions of the Act, 1947. THE Board filed the reply contending that the workman had been appointed by the Chairman, who had no competence and a person appointed dehors the Statutory Rules cannot claim any relief. THE Chairman, who had appointed the workman, had been removed subsequently by the State Government after holding an inquiry under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter called "the Act, 1959") on various charges including the charge of appointing the workman illegally. Criminal cases had also been lodged against him. Moreso, under Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Rules, 1963 (for short, "the Rules, 1963"), appointment cannot be made on ad-hoc basis for a period of more than one year and the post of Tax Assessor under Section 114 of the Act, 1959 can be filled up only with previous sanction of the State Government and as the said post had never been sanctioned in the Board, workman's appointment was illegal; an Assessor cannot be a "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act, 1947; and, thus, he was not entitled for any relief. The parties led evidence before the Labour Court and vide impugned award dated 26.5.2000, the Court allowed the claim of the respondent-workman directing his reinstatement with 50% of back wages from the date of reference till the date of Award. Hence this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Board and State-respondent No.3 have raised the same questions of facts and law which had been raised before the Labour Court, including the competence of the Chairman to appoint the respondent-workman and also that he was not a "workman" being an Assessor and getting the salary of Rs.4106/- per month. Land and Building Tax Department of the Board is not an industry. Appointment on ad-hoc basis could not be continued beyond a period of one year. Hence, the award is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, it has been canvassed on behalf of the workman that this Court, in a limited jurisdiction of judicial review, should not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court and the petition is liable to be rejected. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the written submissions filed on behalf of the employee. Scope of Judicial Review In a case like instant, the Court can review only the "decision making procedure" and not the "decision" of the Labour Court/Tribunal. This Court, not being a Court of Appeal, should not substitute its view on factual aspects of the case. The Court can review to correct errors of law or fundamental procedural requirements which may lead to manifest injustice and can interfere with the impugned order in "exceptional circumstances". (Vide Union of India vs. Parma Nanda (1); State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow (2); State of Punjab vs. Surjit Singh (3); State of U.P. vs. Ashok Kumar Singh & Anr. (4); State of U.P. vs. Nand Kishore Shukla & Anr. (5); Transport Commissioner, Madras vs. Thiru ARK Moorthy (6); Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Bhola Nath Singh & Ors. (7); State of Punjab vs. Bakhshish Singh (8); Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (9); Union of India vs. Lt. Gen. R.S. Kadyan & Anr. (10); Food Corporation of India vs. A. Prahalada Rao & Anr. (11); Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Girja Shankar Pant & Ors. (12); N.R. Nair vs. Union of India & Ors. (13); Union of India & Ors. vs. Ashotosh Kumar Srivastava (14) and Quseph Mathai & Ors. vs. M. Abdul Khadir (15).
(3.) IN State of Tamil Nadu vs. S. Subramaniam (16), the Apex Court held that the Court, in exercise of its powers of judicial review, is to consider whether the conclusion reached by the Authority is based on the evidence on record and support the findings, or whether the conclusion is based on no evidence. In General Court Martial & Ors. vs. Col. Aniltej Singh Dhaliwal (17), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court, in exercise of its limited power of judicial review, may interfere by appreciating the evidence only if there is an omission on the part of the Authority to consider the relevant evidence. Similarly, in Rajinder Kumar Kindra vs. Delhi Administration (18), the Apex Court observed as under:- "It is equally well settled that where a quasi-judicial Tribunal or Arbitrator records findings based on no legal evidence and the findings are either his ipse dixit or based on conjectures and surmises, the enquiry suffers from the additional infirmity of non-application of mind and stands vitiated........ Viewed from either angle, the conclusions ............. are wholly perverse and hence unsustainable ........... Between appraisal of evidence and total lack of evidence there is an appreciable difference which could never be lost sight of and the High Court ought not to have short-circuited the writ petition." In Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Suresh & Ors. (19), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court cannot be interferred by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution unless the "same is otherwise perverse or there is an existing error apparent on the face of the record." ;