IMPORTANT POINTS
A decision, even if erroneous but within jurisdiction of the body delivering it, would not be amenable to writ of certiorari jurisdiction.
Application u/s 33A, ID Act though not a civil suit, Order VI Rule 4, CPC will apply but without its full vigor.
Distinction between threat or coercion on the one hand and fraud on the other.
Even upon a finding of illegality, a Court exercising certiorari jurisdiction is not bound to interfere.

JUDGMENT :

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against judgment of the High Court of Orissa dismissing the Writ Application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the appellant. What was called in question before the High Court was the Award passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

2. By the impugned order, the High Court had dismissed the Writ Application and confirmed the Award. The award was passed on an application filed under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) by 90 workers of the appellant, the respondents herein who shall be referred as the applicants.

3. On 28.10.1992, the High Court, in Writ Petition O.J.C. No. 2420 of 1989, held that the NMR workers in the Rengali Hydro Electric Project (RHEP) who had worked continuously for a period of five years on the date of the judgment, were entitled for regularization. They were found entitled to same pay as regular employees. The appellants challenged the same by a Special Leave Petition which was converted to Civil Appeal Nos.7342-7343 of 1993.

4. In short, the case of the applicants (who were NMR workers in the Rengali Unit) before the Labour Court was that a reference had been made to the Labour Court dated 02.07.1999 for adjudicating disputes between the appellants-Management and its workmen. Issues were essentially whether NMR workers were entitled to payment of Hydro Allowance at revised rates. The further issue was, whether NMR workers of the Rengali Unit of the Orissa Hydro Power Corporation, who were being paid medical allowance, were entitled for such allowance at revised rates.

5. The further case of the applicants, who were NMR workers in the Application under Section 33A of the Act, was that they had signed certain papers on the basis that it was necessary for their being regularized but as it turned out, it was used as if they were Applications for claiming the benefit of a Voluntary Separation Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘VSS’ for short). They were prevented from discharging their duties. They came to know about the deception practiced. This led to the application under Section 33A of the Act.

6. The Labour Court found that the VSS was thrust upon the applicants and there was no publicity and allowed the application and directed reinstatement with 70 per cent back-wages which was directed to be adjusted towards payments made to the applicants.

7. The High Court noticed that an industrial dispute was pending, as noticed by us earlier. It took note of the fact that the Labour Court has proceeded to find that the VSS had not been published widely for the information of the NMR workers, and therefore, it would not be accepted that the NMR workers signed the applications knowing its contents and consequences. It was found inter alia further that the Award was passed on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence produced before the Labour Court. Noticing what was invoked before the High Court was Certiorari jurisdiction and that a writ can be issued only in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction and finding that there was no jurisdictional error or any error apparent on the face of it, the writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

8. We have heard Mr. Shibashish Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants.

THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

9. The appellants would submit that on 16.11.1999), the Government of Orissa, Department of Energy, approved the proposal of the appellant-Corporation to float the VSS after concurrence from the Finance Department in respect of NMRs/Contingent Khalasis. On 15.04.2000, the President of the Employee Union wrote to the Chairman to fix a date to discuss about certain issues. One of the issues was about enhancement of the VRS for NMR employees. On 27.04.2000, the appellant-Corporation informed the Senior General Manager that the VSS sh