1998 Supreme(Guj) 54

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :J.M.Panchal, K.G.Balakrishnan
CHHAGAN RANCHHOD KUKVAVA - Appellant
Versus
GENERAL MANAGER,western RAILWAY - Respondent
S.C.A. 181 of 1998
Decided On : 02/11/1998

Headnote:(a) Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Sec. 21 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 226/227 - Petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal - Held, that in exercising the power under Art. 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate Court of the Tribunal & its supervisory jurisdiction is limited only to seeing whether the Tribunal has acted within its jurisdiction or authority - Reviewing & reweighing of evidence or correcting errors apparent on the face of record or those of law - These are not its functions under Art. 227.

       An order passed by the Tribunal can be challenged under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India only if there is any jurisdictional error or procedural error apparent on the face of the record. It was observed by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaquim & Ors., reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 38 that a mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 227. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal function within the limits of its authority and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record much less an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Art. 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court of Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision.

       [Para 7]

       (b) Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Sec. 21 - Laches - The section puts a bar on the Tribunal that it is not supposed to entertain any application in respect of an order passed before 1 year - This is a statutory bar - Petitioner a casual labour claiming that he had worked for 431 days and as such his name ought to be registered in `live register maintained in that behalf - But when even his original application (which was dismissed) and found filed several years after the cause of action had arisen. His present application adjudged by Tribunal as much belated - Held, Tribunal had executed its power according to law.

       The petitioner contends that he was a casual labourer in Railway in Bhavnagar Unit from 24.12.1982 to 20.3.1984 and he had worked for 431 days and, therefore, it is claimed that his name should be included in the live register for the casual labourers maintained by the respondents. In the original application, he also prayed for a declaration that the action of the respondents in preparing and notifying list of casual labourers, who had worked prior to 1.1.1981 is illegal and that the respondents should be directed to prepare upto-date list of casual labourers. Before the Tribunal, the respondents contended that the name of the petitioner cannot be included in the live register, as he had worked for a period after 1.1.1981. The respondents also contended that the claim of the petitioner is belated and the original application was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

       [Para 1]

       The Tribunal, after having considered the matter, held that the application filed by the petitioner was highly belated, as cause of action for the petitioner had arisen several years prior to the filing of the original application and the Original Application was accordingly dismissed.

       [Para 2]

       In this background, it is clear that there was laxity on the part of the petitioner if at all he had any right to be included in the live register of the casual labourers maintained by the authority.

       [Para 5]

       Under Sec. 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, there is a statutory bar to the Tribunal to entertain any application in respect of an order which is passed before one year. The Tribunal has exercised power in accordance with law.

       [Para 6]

       (c) Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 227 - Held, that a mere wrong decision would not attract the jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 227 - There ought to be something more than this to warrant High Courts interference in its supervisory capacity - Ratio in AIR 1984 SC 38 followed.

       An order passed by the Tribunal can be challenged under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India only if there is any jurisdictional error or procedural error apparent on the face of the record. It was observed by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaquim & Ors., reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 38 that a mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 227. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal function within the limits of its authority and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record much less an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Art. 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court of Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision.

       [Para 7]