Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.A. DESAI; O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.
Babulal Nagar and others, Appellants
Versus
Shree Synthetics Ltd. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1891-1895 (NL) of 1982
Decided on 4-5-1984.
Nothing appears more well settled than that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 conferred on the High Court was a weapon forged to over-reach injustice and secure and advance justice. When, therefore, this extra-ordinary power is used to defeat justice and to promote technicality not only its raison d’etre is violated but it becomes a handy instrument for those to whom litigation cost is a luxury enjoyed at the cost of others and employed to exhaust and harass an unequal opponent. [Para 1]
The narrow question which the Supreme Court proposed to examine in this case was whether the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Arts. 226 & 227 should have by giving undue importance to a technical objection of jurisdiction which on proper fathoming, it itself lacked should have set aside a well-considered reasoned judgment of the President of the Industrial Court which again had merely remanded the matter thus prolonging to some extent the agony of the unemployed workers commencing from 1975.
Ordinarily, the Courts exercising extraordinary jurisdiction are loathe to interfere with an order remanding the matter to the authority directed to investigate facts. The Industrial Court had made an order of remand. The High Court was not justified in interfering with the same. By this uncalled for interference, it has merely prolonged the agony of the unemployed workmen and permitted the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 to be exploited by those who can well afford to wait to the detriment of those who can ill afford to wait by dragging the latter from Court to Court for adjudication of peripheral issues avoiding decision on issues more vital to them. (1983) 4 SCC 156 followed.
[Para 20]
(2) Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (M. P.)-S. 61-order of imposing penalty passed under the standing orders-scope of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.
An order made under the standing orders, may be challenged before the Labour Court, the Labour Court will have jurisdiction to decide the legality and the propriety of the order. When jurisdiction is conferred upon the Labour Court, not only to examine the legality of the order as also the propriety of the order, the Labour Court can in exercise of the jurisdiction examine the propriety or impropriety of the order. [Paras 14 & 15]
(3) Words & phrases-word 'propriety'-meaning of-effect of the use of the word.
The expression propriety is variously understood, one meaning assigned to it being justice.
If therefore, the justice or justness in relation to a legal proceeding where evidence is led is questioned and the authority is conferred with jurisdiction to examine the propriety of the order or decision that authority will have the same jurisdiction as the original authority to come to a different conclusion on the same set of facts. If any other view is taken the expression 'propriety' would lose all significance. 1956 SCR 256 & (1960) 2 SCR 896 followed. AIR 1968 Mad. 152, (1965) 1 Lah. L.J. 155, AIR 1965 Born. 81, 1975 JLJ 297 referred to. [Para 14]
(4) Words & Phrases-phrase 'may call for the record of such case and pass order in reference to it as it thinks fit'-scope of the power.
(5) Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (M.P.)-S. 66-powers of the revisional authority in respect of order passed under section 61-any order as it thinks fit-meaning of.
The main part of section 61 clearly spells out the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to pass any order in reference to the case brought before it as it thinks fit. The expression 'as it thinks fit' confers a very wide jurisdiction enabling it to take an entirely different view on the same set of facts. The expression 'as it thinks fit' has the same connotation as, unless context, otherwise indicates, 'as he deems fit.' AIR 1962 SC 753 relied on.
[Para 16]
(6) Interpretation of Statutes-proviso conflicting with the main section-how to be interpreted.
(7) Industrial Relations Act, 1966 (M.P.)-S. 66 (1), Proviso-the main section and the proviso conflicting-mode of interpretation-Civil P.C., 1908 S. 115.
The revisional jurisdiction of the Industrial Court is not so circumscribed as to bring it on par with section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The proviso does not cut down the ambit of the main provision but it cannot be interpreted to denude the main provision of any efficacy and reduce it to a paper provision. Both must be so interpreted as to permit interference which if not undertaken there would be miscarriage of justice. Sub-clause (c) of the first proviso to section 66 (1) will permit the Industrial Court to interfere with the order made by the Labour Court, if the Labour Court has acted with material irregularity in disposal of the dispute before it. If the finding recorded by the Labour Court is such to which no reasonable man can arrive, obviously, the Industrial Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction would be entitled to interfere with the same even if patent jurisdictional error is not pointed out. [Para 16]
JUDGMENT
DESAI, J.:— Nothing appears more well settled than that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 conferred on the High Court was a weapon forged to overreach injustice and secure and advance justice. When therefore, this extraordinary power is used to defeat justice and to promote technicality not only its raison detre is violated but it becomes a handy instrument for those to whom litigation cost is a luxury enjoyed at the cost of others and employed to exhaust and harass an unequal opponent. Sad as it may appear that unfortunate situation emerges in this appeal.
2. The first respondent - Shree Synthetics Ltd. (respondent for short) appears to be a company governed by the Companies Act, 1956. It has set up a factory at Ujjain where it manufactures polyester fibre. Appellants in each of these appeals were the workmen of the respondent. There is a trade union of the workmen employed by the respondent of which at the relevant time three out of the five appellants in this group of appeals were office-bearers. Babulal Nagar was the President, of the Union Babulal Jaiswal was the General Secretary and Ramesh Chandra was the Secretary.
3. According to the respondents on June 3, 1975 around 11.10 P.M. one Verma a workman of the respondent on the shift being over went-out of the compound gate and took his seat in a tempo when Babulal Nagar and Babulal Jaiswal along with three other appellants approached him and asked Verma to alight from the tempo as they wanted to talk to him. On Vermas disinclination to come out of the vehicle, it was alleged that Babulal Nagar and Babulal Jaiswal pulled Verma out of the vehicle and all the appellants assaulted him with fists and kicks and felled him down as a result of which Verma sustained bleeding injuries on his head. On hearing the commotion, staff of the security department intervened and rescued him.
4. Setting out these allegations a charge-sheet was drawn-up and served on the five appellants followed by a composite domestic enquiry at the end of which all of them were dismissed from service.
5. The appellants moved five different applications before the Labour Court questioning the validity of the domestic enquiry held against them as also the legality and propriety of the orders terminating their services. The Labour Court was of the opinion that the domestic enquiry was held according to the relevant rules and as there was evidence in support of the alleged misconduct the management was justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service and accordingly all the five applications were dismissed.
6. The appellants filed five separate revision petitions before the Industrial Court under Sections 66 and 67 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (Act for short). All the five revision petitions were heard by the President of the Industrial Court at Indore who was of the opinion that the entire approach of the inquiry officer Manager - in arriving at the findings of misconduct in his enquiry appear to be biased and unfair and that the conclusions are neither fair nor reasonable and as such, the dismissal cannot be sustained on the basis thereof. Accordingly he, by a common judgment dated February 26, 1979, allowed all the revision petitions and set aside the orders of the Labour Court dismissing the applications and remanded the matters to the Labour Court for a fresh decision after giving both the parties due opportunity to adduce evidence in respect of the alleged misconduct.
7. The respondent moved five separate misc. petitions in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur at Indore under Arts. 226 and, 227 of the Constitution questioning the correctness of the decision of the Industrial Court. A Division Bench of the High Court held that the Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the findings of facts and this was an error apparent, on the face of the award. Accordingly, it issued a writ of certiorari and quashed the decision, of the Ind
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
