Judgement

WANCHOO, CJI. :- This is an appeal by special leave in an industrial matter and arises in the following circumstances. Respondent Hanuman was in the service of the appellant. He took leave from 3rd to 9th April, 1965 and in that connection a certificate from the Employees State Insurance Dispensary (hereinafter referred to as the Dispensary) was produced. He should have joined on 10th April, 1965, but he did not do so. His case was that he had sent another certificate from the Dispensary on April 10, 1965 for further leave through one Prahlad Singh. Thereafter he was given a fitness certificate on April 19, 1965 and was required to join on 20th April, 1965. He appeared to report for duty on 20th April, 1965, but he was not allowed to join on the ground that his service stood terminated. As an industrial matter was pending at the time in which he was concerned as a workman, he made an application under S. 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, No. 14 of 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for reinstatement.

2. The case of the appellant on the other hand was that Hanuman respondent was on leave from April 3 to April 9, 1965 on the basis of the certificate from the Dispensary. The appellant however contended that no certificate was received thereafter on April 10, 1965 through Prahlad Singh as alleged by Hanuman. Further Hanuman did not appear to re-join till April 20, 1965. Consequently in view of S. O. (i) in Section G of the Certified Standing Orders Hanuman lost his lien on his appointment. The appellant s case thus was that Hanuman s service stood terminated automatically under the Standing Orders and no order as such was passed by the appellant terminating his service. In consequence there was no contravention of Section 33 of the Act and therefore Hanuman s application under Section 33-A was not maintainable.

3. Two questions thus arose before the labour court. The first was whether Hanuman continued ill from April 10, to April 19, 1985 and whether he had sent the certificate in support of that illness from the Dispensary and the second was whether the application was maintainable under Section 33-A of the Act in view of the alleged automatic termination of Hanuman s service, under the Standing Orders. On the first point the labour court held that Hanuman had continued ill from April 10 to April 19, 1965 and that he had sent the certificate through Prahlad Singh on April 10, 1965. On the second question the labour court seems to have held that the service of Hanuman was not automatically terminated under the Standing Orders and in any case the appellant should have taken his explanation and so there was denial of natural justice for the service of Hanuman was terminated without any enquiry. The labour court therefore decided in favour of Hanuman and ordered his reinstatement with all back wages.

4. In the present appeal, the appellant raises two points. It is first contended that the finding of the labour court that Hanuman continued ill from April 10 to April l9, 1965 was perverse. Secondly, it is contended that the service of Hanuman stood automatically terminated under the relevant standing order as such Section 33 was not contravened and no application under Section .33-A lay.

5. Ordinarily this Court is slow to interfere with findings of fact recorded by quasi-judicial tribunals in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. But this Court does so if it is shown ex facie, that the finding recorded is perverse. It does appear to us in this case that the finding that Hanuman continued ill from April 10 to April 19 1965 is perverse. It is true that Hanuman stated that he had sent the certificate through Prahlad on April 10 1965. In support of his statement he examined Prahlad Singh and Dr. Girraj Prasad who was in-charge of the Dispensary at the time when evidence was given in l966. Prahlad Singh did not support Hanuman and was treated as hostile. Prahlad Singh had given an affidavit in favour of Hanuman