GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 11. 5. 1992 against the s with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the judgment dated 28. 11. 1991 (Annex. 8) passed by the No. 1-Authority under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments ct, 1958, Sri Ganganagar be quashed and set aside.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: The respondent no. 2 Tilak Raj filed a claim petition under Section 28-A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1958") before the respondent No. 1 Authority under Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958, Sri Ganganagar (for short "the Authority") on 8. 5. 1989 stating inter alia that the respondent No. 2 had been functioning as Manager in the New Light talkies, Raisingh Nagar District Sri Ganganagar and he was being paid salary of Rs. 1075/- per month since 15. 4. 1979 and the services of the respondent No. 2 were terminated by the petitioner, who was owner of that Talkies, without any written order or notice of one month or payment of one month salary in lieu thereof. A copy of the claim petition presented by the respondent No. 2 before the respondent No. 1- Authority is marked as Annex. 1. The petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 1-Authority and submitted his reply, which is marked as Annex. 2 to the writ petition and the allegations made by the respondent No. 2 in his claim petition (Annex. 1) were denied and it was submitted by the petitioner that he was not the owner of the New Light Talkies, Raisinghnagar and the petitioner had not given appointment to the respondent No. 2 and there were 20 partners of the New Light Talkies and, therefore, the claim petition against the petitioner alone was not maintainable. IT was further submitted by the petitioner that since the respondent No. 2 was busy in his own work, therefore, he had voluntarily left the services as Manager of the New Light Talkies, Raisinghnagar. Before the respondent No. 1-Authority, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and in defence, the petitioner-Lal Singh himself appeared as DW1 before the respondent No. 1 Authority and one more person, namely, Balram, Accountant was also produced as DW2. IT was stated by the petitioner in his statement recorded as DW1 that the respondent No. 2 had voluntarily left the service after settlement of the accounts and in that settlement, the respondent No. 2 demanded Rs. 4000/- and that amount was paid to the respondent No. 2 in two equal instalments of Rs. 2000/- for which receipts Ex. D/1 to Ex. D/3 were produced. After considering the evidence of both the parties, the respondent No. 1 Authority under the Rajasthan Shops & Commercial Establishment act, 1958, Sri Ganganagar through judgment dated 28. 11. 1991 (Annex. 8) allowed the claim petition of the respondent No. 2 and ordered reinstatement of the respondent no. 2 with back wages holding inter alia that the removal of the respondent No. 2 from service was improper and illegal, as he was removed from service without giving one month's prior notice or paying him one month's wages in lieu of such notice, as required under the provisions of Section 28-A (1) of the Act of 1958. Aggrieved from the said judgment dated 28. 11. 1991 (Annex. 8) passed by the respondent No. 1 Authority, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. In this writ petition, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner:- (1) That since in New Light Talkies of Raisinghnagar, there were 20 partners, therefore, claim petition only against the petitioner was not maintainable. (2) That the respondent No. 1-Authority completely failed to take into account that Rs. 4000/- were paid to the respondent No. 2 as compensation and this should be taken as a compliance of Section 28-A (1) of the Act of 1958. (3) That the respondent no. 2 was not removed from service, but actually he had voluntarily left the service. Thus, the impugned judgment of the respondent No. 1 Authority dated 28. 11. 1991 (Annex. 8) is without jurisdiction as all the above three points were not considered by the respondent No. 1 Authority. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 supported the impugned judgment dated 28. 11. 1991 (Annex. 8) passed by the respondent No. 1 Authority. He has also raised a preliminary objection that the present writ petition is not maintainable because it was not filed on behalf of the firm. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and perused the impugned judgment dated 28. 11. 1991 (Annex. 8) passed by the respondent no. 1 Authority. The respondent no. 1 Authority in the impugned judgment Annex. 8 dated 28. 11. 1991 came to the following conclusions:- (1) That from the evidence on record, it is established that the respondent no. 2 was working as Supervisor in the Establishment of the petitioner. (2) That the petitioner has admitted in his statement recorded as DW1 that the respondent no. 2 was given employment in the year 1980-81 and that fact was also corroborated by DW2 Balram, Cashier. (3) That the main issue was whether the respondent no. 2 was removed from service or whether he himself left the services of he petitioner and the respondent no. 1-Authority examined the evidence of the parties on that issue and thereafter, the respondent no. 1 Authority came to the conclusion that the respondent no. 2 did not leave the service of the petitioner voluntarily, but he was removed from service without complying with the provisions of Section 28-A (1) of the Act of 1958 as no prior notice of one month or one month's wages in lieu of such notice was given to the respondent no. 2 before his removal from service and thus, his removal from service was improper and illegal. Thus, after giving the above findings, the respondent no. 1 Authority ordered reinstatement of the respondent No. 2 with back wages under the provisions of Section 28-A (3) of the Act of 1958.
(3.) IN exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of INdia, this Court has very limited scope of interference as per the law laid down in Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors. (1), wherein it has been held that even the errors of law cannot be corrected in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution and the power can be used sparingly when it comes to the conclusion that the Authority/tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction of proceeded under erroneous presumption of jurisdiction. The High Court cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decision. For interference, there must be a case of flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or where order of the Tribunal etc. has resulted in grave injustice. It is well settled that power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is of the judicial superintendence which cannot be used to up-set conclusions of facts, howsoever erroneous those may be, unless such conclusions are so perverse or so unreasonable that no Court could ever have reached them. The jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not appellate but supervisory and, therefore, it cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Court below unless there is no evidence to support the finding or the finding is totally perverse. ;