BABURAOJI PANDURANG ROKADE AND BROS Vs. EMPLOYEES OF BABURAOJI PANDURANG ROKADE AND BROS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Firm is carrying on business of manufacture of picture and photo frames in the City of Nagpur. A notice of change was given by the representatives of the employees in the said factory demanding 50% increase in their existing wages. Such a notice of change was given on 4-4-1967. As no agreement was reached between the parties, the elected representatives served a further notice under Section 54 (7) read with Rule 62 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act,1946. As the negotiations failed, a report was sent in that behalf by the conciliator to the Government. Thereafter the Government of Maharashtra made a reference to the Industrial Court at Nagpur under Section 73 (2) of the Act. The petitioner- employer filed its written statement and challenged the claim of the employees on several grounds. The parties adduced evidence before the Industrial Court and after appreciating all the evidence on record, the Industrial Court by its Award dated 16th April, 1971, held that it will be reasonable to increase the wages by 20 per cent instead of 50% as demanded by the employees. The award was given a prospective effect. It is this Award which is challenged before us in this writ petition.

(2.) Shri K. H. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner-employer contended before us that the carpenters and the persons employed for polishing are not 'employees' within the meaning of Section 3 (13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. Initially a contention was also raised before us that the award made by the Industrial Court is without jurisdiction because it had no jurisdiction to fix the minimum wages. However, later on a jont pursis has been filed before us by the parties and in view of this joint pursis, the award on merits is not now challenged before us. Therefore, the only contention which requires consideration in this writ petition is to find out as to whether the carpenters and persons employed for polishing are 'employees' within the meaning of the said expression as defined in the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.

(3.) At the outset it should be noted that the power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being extraordinary is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. This power cannot be invoked to correct an error of fact which only the Superior Court can do in exercise of its statutory power as a Court of appeal. The High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution convert itself into a Court of appeal when the Legislature has not conferred a right of appeal and made the decision of the Industrial Tribunal final on facts. This Court cannot while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal unless it is shown that it is manifestly erroneous. Its function is limited to seeing that the Subordinate Court or the Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and reappreciating it: See Babhutmal V/s. Laxmibai, 1975 AIR(SC) 1297 .