IMPORTANT POINT
The action of the appellant alleging termination of service under certified standing orders was rightly held by labour court and High Court as arbitrary and unjustified.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India-Article 136-Scope of interference with labour disputes decided by Labour Court and High Court-High Court finding no misreading or misappreciation of evidence by labour court-Whether Apex Court can intervene in such a case under Article 136?
       Held : The issue thus raised - Can it be said to be within the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution to intervene or interfere with an appraisal of evidence on record ? A further question also in consequence thereof arises that in the event the High Court records a finding in terms of the order of the Tribunal and in the event of a party being aggrieved, would there be an inevitable refusal of this Court to entertain -Can it be said to be the true purport of our justice delivery system ? - It is again answered in the negative by reason of the fact that in the event of there being a misreading of law or applicability of law wrongly, the intervention cannot but be said to be the correct approach to the matter. (Paras 8 and 9)
       (ii) Contract of employment-Certified standing order-Clause 9(f)(ii)-If any work man absents himself for 10 consecutive working days without leave shall be deemed to have left firm s service without notice, thereby terminating his service-Four days absence without leave-Letter dated 17th October to report-Non-compliance-Service terminated under clause 9(f)(ii)-Labour Court setting it aside-High Court affirming in writ-Appeal to Supreme Court-Scope of interference-Whether Courts below were right? (Yes)-Appeal dismissed-Case law discussed.
       Held : Relying upon the well-accepted and settled principles of law as regards the norm of interference with the order of inferior Tribunals, the High Court negated the plea of the Appellant herein that Certified Standing Order being a part of the conditions of service, ought to be strictly interpreted and there is no scope of reading into the same, some other element. (Para 2)
       Held (after discussing case law) : It is thus in this context one ought to read the doctrine of natural justice being an in-built requirement on the Standing Orders. Significantly, the facts depict that the respondent-workman remained absent from duty from 13th October 1990 and it is within a period of four days that a letter was sent to the workman informing him that since he was absenting himself from duty without authorised leave he was advised to report back within 48 hours and also to tender his explanation for his absence, otherwise his disinterestedness would thus be presumed. Is this in strict compliance with the Certified Standing Order - the answer possibly cannot be in the affirmative. Though however, if the letter dated 25th October, 1990 as noticed above is to be taken note of, then and in that event the same thus come within the ambit of the Certified Standing Order of 10 days continued absence - the situation however is slightly different in the present context since the letter of 25th October is an intimation of his name being struck off the rolls of the company. It is an act; subsequent to the order of termination and if the letter of 17th October is an indication for such an order of termination the same does not come within the ambit of the Certified Standing Order. The High Court on this score stated as below:
        Even if it presumed that the petitioner-management may have afforded an opportunity to the respondent-workman to tender his explanation and as such complied with the principles of natural justice in terms of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Hindustan Paper Corporation s case (supra), yet the question remains, whether the determination of the petitioner management was arbitrary and without application of mind?"
       .........................
       In our considered view, the rejection of the claim of the respondent-workman is absolutely arbitrary and without consideration of the material placed on record by the respondent-workman (as discussed in the foregoing paragraph). The Labour Court examined in detail the factual position and returned a finding that the respondent - workman had not absented himself from service deliberately or intentionally and also that he had not abandoned his service. It was further concluded that his absence was based on account of his illness which could be affirmed from the medical certificates produced by him. In the aforesaid view of the matter, in our considered view, the action of the petitioner-management in rejecting the representation of the respondent-workman dated 30.1.1991 was clearly arbitrary and as such it is not sustainable in law."
       Having regard to the well settled principle of law as in Yadav (supra), the decision to terminate by reason of a presumption as noticed above, we cannot but lend concurrence to the conclusion of the High Court that the action is purely and surely arbitrary in nature. Arbitrariness is an anti-thesis to rule of law: equity: fair play and justice -contract of employment there may be but it cannot be devoid of the basic principles of the concept of justice. Justice oriented approach as is the present trend in Indian jurisprudence shall have to read as an in-built requirement of the basic of concept of justice, to wit, the doctrine of natural justice, fairness, equality and rule of law : The letter dated 17th October cannot by any stretch be treated to be an opportunity since it is only on the fourth day that such a letter was sent - the action of the appellant herein stands out to be devoid of any justification, neither it depicts acceptability of the doctrine of natural justice or the concept of fairness - arbitrariness is written large and we confirm the finding of the High Court as also that of the learned Trial Judge and the Tribunal as regards issue as noticed above. (Paras 14 and 15)
       Held finally : In that view of the matter, there cannot thus be any perversity or any miscarriage of justice warranting intervention of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. (Para 16)

JUDGMENT

Banerjee, J.-Leave granted.

2. Relying upon the well-accepted and settled principles of law as regards the norm of interference with the order of inferior Tribunals, the High Court negated the plea of the Appellant herein that Certified Standing Order being a part of the conditions of service, ought to be strictly interpreted and there is no scope of reading into the same, some other element. It is in this score the decision of this Court in Syed Yakoob (Syed Yakoob) v. K.S. Radhakrishnan & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 477) ought to be noticed.

This Court in Yakoob s decision stated:

"7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 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 Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised."

2. The decision in Syed Yakoob (supra) stands considered in a recent judgment of this Court in P.G.I. of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh v. Raj Kumar (2001 (2) SCC 54), wherein this Court in paragraph 9 stated as below :

"9. The Labour Court being the final court of facts came to a conclusion that payment of 60 wages would comply with the requirement of law. The finding of perversity or being erroneous or not in accordance with law shall have to be recorded with reasons in order to assail the finding of the Tribunal or the Labour Court. It is not for the High Court to go into the factual aspects of the matter and there is an existing limitation on the High Court to that effect. In the event, however the finding of fact is based on any misappreciation of evidence, that would be deemed to be an error of law which can b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 803

IMPORTANT POINTThe action of the appellant alleging termination of service under certified standing orders was rightly held by labour court and High Court as arbitrary and unjustified.

Cases Referred (6)

IMPORTANT POINT
The action of the appellant alleging termination of service under certified standing orders was rightly held by labour court and High Court as arbitrary and unjustified.