The Industrial Court has the power to examine the legality of an order passed by an authority below when the record of the case is before it.

JUDGMENT- The facts leading to this petition must be mentioned before the points of law and of jurisdiction which have been raised can be appreciated. The petitioner was at the relevant time working with the first respondent, hereinafter referred to as "the respondent", as a watchman. He has been described as a round watchman which means, I am told, that he has to take rounds of the premises of the respondent and not merely to do the watchman's, duty at a single place. There was discovered in the premises of the respondent a theft of ten coconut trees in the early hours of 1st of November 1977 and since immediately preceding the discovery of this theft the petitioner was on duty as a round watchman it was alleged that he was guilty of negligence in the discharge of his duty. On, this basis, a charge-sheet was served Upon him and on being found guilty in an enquiry" about which, no grievance has been made either in the Court of first instance or later, a discharge order was passed on 7th of December' 1977. This order has been referred to at several places as the dismissal order.

2. The petitioner thereafter filed an application, being Application No. 22 of 1977, before the Labour Court at Sohipur under section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, hereinafter referred to for brevity's -sake as the "PULP Act", the application specifically contented that the order of dismissal passed by the respondent was for patently false reasons. It was not the case of the petitioner that the enquiry which was conducted was in contravention or any rules of natural justice or that it was vitiated by any other reasons. The application was resisted 'by the respondent by pointing out that the petitioner has been discharged after a legal and valid enquiry which was held and after finding that he was guilty of negligence in the discharge of his duty.

3. The learned Judge of the Labour Court raised the following issues on the pleadings of the parties:-

(1) Does the applicant prove that he has been wrongfully dismissed by the Opponent?

(2) Is the applicant entitled to reinstatement? (3) Is the applicant entitled to back-wages?

She answered all the issues in the affirmative in favour of the petitioner. This she did by her judgment and order dated 7th of August 1980. A direction for reinstatement was accordingly incorporated in the order.

4. This order of the Labour Court was challenged by the respondent in a revision application, being Revision Application (ULP) No. 33 of 1980, under section 44 of the Prevention of unfair Labour practices Act before the Industrial Court at Bombay. The learned President of the Industrial Court by his judgment and order dated 18th 'of December 1980 set aside the order passed by the Labour Court below by holding that the foundation of fact which could have enabled the Labour Court to give the relief which the Labour Court ultimately gave did not exist in the instant case. Exercising' the revisional powers of the Industrial Court, the learned President found that the finding of the Labour Court itself' disclosed patent error of law leading to error of jurisdiction. It is this order of the Industrial Court that is challenged in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

5. It has, been contended by Dr. Kulkarni, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition, that the President of the Industrial Court has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him by law by interfering with what was essentially a finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court. According to Dr. Kulkarni, the question as to whether the order of' dismissal was justifiable or not was within the competence of the Labour Court to decide on the basis of the material which was placed before, it by both the parties and if in exercise of that jurisdiction the Labour Court came to a finding, then that finding was not amenable to any interference at the basis of the Industrial Court und

Click Here to Read the rest of this document