The High Court's limited scope for interference with the Industrial Court's award and the obligation of the State to pay the awarded amounts.

Headnote:
Back Wages - Industrial Tribunal's Decision on Salary Payment - The High Court's Refusal to Consider Additional Documents - Court's Decision to Set Aside High Court's Order and Restore Industrial Court's Decision
Fact of the Case:

The Industrial Tribunal directed the respondent to pay salary to the appellant for specific periods. The High Court refused to consider additional documents presented by the appellant, leading to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the High Court was not justified in refusing to consider the additional documents. It set aside the High Court's order and restored the Industrial Court's decision.
Issues: The issue was the refusal of the High Court to consider additional documents and interference with the Industrial Court's award.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court, under Article 226/227, is not justified in interfering with the award unless the approach is wholly perverse. It is not a court of first appeal to re-appreciate the evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the Industrial Court's decision was restored. The State was directed to pay the amounts due as per the Industrial Court's award within three months, failing which, interest would be applicable.

JUDGMENT :

Kurian, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The limited question that arises in these cases is with regard to the back wages payable to the appellant. The Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay salary to the appellant for the period from March, 1996 to September, 1997 and December, 2001 to October, 2002.

3. The High Court took the view that the Muster Rolls do not indicate that the complainant was present for performing the duties. Though, the appellant attempted a review by producing numerous documents, the High Court refused to entertain the same.

4. Having regard to the fact that the documents were produced before the High Court, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in refusing to look into the same. Afterall, the Industrial Court had looked into the entire materials and had awarded the salary for the disputed period. Unless the approach is wholly perverse in the sense that the Tribunal acted on no evidence, the High Court under Article 226/227 is not justified in interfering with the award. It is not a court of first appeal to re-appreciate the evidence. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the order dated 14.03.2012 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur Bench, Maharashtra is restored.

5. Learned counsel for the Management submits that being a hundred per cent grant-in-aid institution, the liability is on the State. There cannot be any quarrel with the above submission. The amounts that have to be paid as per the order of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra being the salary, are to be paid by the State. The amounts due as per the Industrial Court's award, shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment before the Education Officer, failing which, the same would carry 12% interest from the date of order of the Industrial Court and the officers concerned would personally be liable for the same.

6. The appeals are disposed of with no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document