1993 Supreme(Guj) 437

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :A.P.RAVANI, C.V.Jani
SAURASHTRA MAJOOR MAHAJAN SANGH - Appellant
Versus
UNA TALUKA KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG LIMITED - Respondent
S.C.A.269 of 1988
Decided On : 11/04/1993

Headnote:Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 - Sec.85 - Revisional Powers of Industrial Court - Scope of - Extend of such jurisdiction is defined by the Statute conferring such jurisdiction - In view of that only reasonable to hold that Industrial Court possesses power under to interfere provided any error apparent on fact of record evident and certainly not in finding of facts recorded - Provision does not confer to reweigh or reappreciate evidence and/or to prefer another view if another view is preferable or plausible - In the instant case Industrial Court exceeded its powers in exercise of revisionsal jurisdiction - Impugned order by Industrial Court setaside.

       Now the scope of the power of superintendence has been well settled and in view of the language of Section 85 of the Bombay Act it will be only reasonable to hold that the Industrial Court possesses powers to interfere with the orders of the Labour Courts, provided any errors apparent on the face of the record are evident from any orders passed by such Labour Courts and not in findings of facts recorded by them.

       [Para 12]

       In view of the identical language of section 85 of the Act, the scope of revisional power of Industrial Court will be the same as that of the High Court, under Art. 227 of Constitution of India. Apart from other aspects one thing is very clear that it is not open to the authority conferred with power of superintendence analagous to the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to reweigh or reappreciate evidence and or to prefer another view if another view is preferable or plausible.

       [Para 16]

       The Labour Court proceeded to examine the question with regard to applicability of section 25M,25N and 25-O on the assumption that the said provisions were applicable. The Labour Court was justified in doing so because the industrial establishments i.e. sugar factories were not declared to be industrial establishments of seasonal character. While dealing with this aspect the Industrial Court reappreciated the evidence on record. It dealt with different aspects of the availability of sugar cane. The Industrial Court elaborately discussed the evidence on this point, referred to the figures of suger-cane which was made available in preceding two years. Then it again referred to the estimated figures supplied by the District Registrar; then it held that the figures supplied by the District Registrar were estimated figures and therefore the same cannot be treated as giving indication of availability of sugar cane because they were held to be uncertain. The finding on this aspect was arrived at by the Labour Court on the basis of this very evidence. This evidence has been reappreciated by the Industrial Court without indicating any error apparent on the face of the record. The Industrial Court has not come to the finding that while appreciating evidence the Labour Court had applied erroneous principles of law or had committed gross error in appreciating the evidence so as to call for interference in exercise of its powers of superintendence.

       [Para 19]

       In above view of the matter it becomes evident that the Industrial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while exercising the powers of superintendence under section 85 of the Act. Therefore the impugned decision rendered by the Industrial Court in revision applications are required to be quashed and set aside and the same are hereby quashed and set aside.

       [Para 27]

       Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 - Sec. 85 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.227 - Powers under both the provisions - Comparision of - Held - Powers of Superintendence conferred upon Industrial Court under Sec. 85 of the Act are similar to the powers conferred upon High Court under Art. 227 of Constitution except in relation to the extent of operational jurisdiction.

       If one compares the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the language of section 85 of the Act, it becomes clear that the powers of superintendence conferred upon Industrial court are similar to the powers of superintendence conferred upon High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The difference is that the powers of superintendence of High Court are in relation to all courts and Tribunals throughout the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, while the powers of superintendence of Industrial Court are in relation to all Labour Courts

       [Para 11]