UMESH CHANDRA BANERJEE, J.

( 1 ) SINCE the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakub v. K. S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477, the law is well settled pertaining to the assumption of jurisdiction by the writ Court. The Supreme Court in no uncertain terms held that a writ can be issued where, in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on it, the lower Court or the tribunal gives a decision illegally or improperly, as for example, violation of the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court also laid down:"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 which necessarily means that findings of fact by inferior Court or tribunal as a result of an appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in any writ proceeding. An error of law which is apparent on the face of record can be an error of fact, however, grave it may appear to be. If a finding of fact is based on no evidence or if the tribunal had admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the finding that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of Certiorari. Adequacy or sufficiency of evidence laid on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn to the said point are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal and the same cannot be agitated before a writ Court and it is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 226 to issue a writ of Certiorari can be ultimately exercised. "

( 2 ) THE Patna High Court in the case of Bihar Khadi Gram Udyog Samity, Muzaffarpur v. State of Bihar, 1977 LAB IC 466, observed that assuming for the sake of argument that there has been a wrong appraisal of evidence by the Labour Court, the Court shall not be justified in weighing the evidence for itself as if it were sitting in appeal against the order of the Labour Court. In an earlier decision, the Patna High Court in the case of Management of Junkundar Colliery of Messrs, B. Mondal and Co. , v. Sahadeo Thakur, 1974 Lab IC 417, observed that even if the Court can reasonably arrive at a conclusion different from that of the Labour Court but that cannot clothe the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with the power to interfere with the findings of the Labour Court. Same is the view expressed by one of us (Hon ble the Chief Justice) in Tollygunge Club Ltd v. Fifth Industrial Tribunal 1985 (1) LLJ 258. Not long ago, however, the Supreme Court set at rest this particular issue in Tata Cellular s case - Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11. The Supreme Court in paragraph 93 of the report categorically observed that the duty of the Court is confined itself to the question of legality and its concern should be whether the decision making authority exceeded its powers; committed an error of law; committed breach of the rules of natural justice; reached a decision which no reasonable Tribunal would have reached or abused its powers.

( 3 ) THE Supreme Court in the decision noted above, further observed that it is not for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or a particular decision taken in the fulfilment of the policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. The Supreme Court observed:"shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: (i) Illegality :-- This means the decision maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision making power and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety. "

( 4 ) AS a matter of fact, the Supreme Court while referring to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Br

Click Here to Read the rest of this document