2007 Supreme(Guj) 378

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :H.K. Rathod
POST MASTER - Appellant
Versus
J.S.SAIYED - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION 7139 of 2005
Decided On : 06/28/2007

Headnote:Point in Issue :

       Whether Tribunal cum Labour Court order of reinstatement with back wages valid and sustainable?.

       Head Note :

       Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) - Sections 29, 2(J), 25-F, 25-B, 10-A, 2(s) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 227, 141/142 - Termination - Set aside - Reinstatement with continuity of service with back wages - Order of - Validity - Finding of - Sustainability - It has been vehementally argued that respondent being employee of postal department Tribunal-cum-Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain reference because postal department is not an industry under the Act - The contention has no substance and without any force in view of Larger Bench judgment of Apex Court in General Manager Telecom vs. Srinivasan Rao & Ors., 1997 (2) GLH 990, impliedly overruling the earlier Judgments of the Court cited by Council for petitioner - In view of the Larger Bench Judgment of Supreme Court Postal department is an industry and, therefore, respondent is workman within the provisions of the Act - The respondent has proved completion of 240 days within one year as required under the Act - Undisputedly as mandatory requirements before termination are not followed by petitioner, the impugned order of termination is ab-initio void and cannot be sustained - The respondent is deemed to be in service for all the purposes and is entitled to normal and natural consequences of reinstatement and back wages which has been rightly granted by Tribunal - This Court cannot act as an appellate authority and cannot interfere in absence of any error apparent on the face of the record.

       Held :

       In view of decision of Apex Court in case of Telecom Department, as the postal department is held to be industry, the I.D. Act applicable to postal department and, therefore, the respondent is workman within meaning of Section 2(S) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The completion of 240 days by respondent within the meaning of Section 25-B is proved by oral evidence of workman and documents which are on record. Undisputedly, as Section 25-F is not followed by petitioner at the time of termination, then the termination order becomes ab initio void and, therefore, the respondent is deemed to be in service for all the purposes and entitled to normal and natural consequences of reinstatement and back wages which has rightly been granted by Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Thus, no error is committed by Court which requires any interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India by this Court. [Para 27]

       This Court is having very limited jurisdiction under Article 27 of the Constitution of the India. This Court cannot act as an appellant authority. This Court cannot interfere unless the error which found apparently on the face of record. The Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has not committed either error of law or error of facts which requires interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even in case of two views are possible then also interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is uncalled for. Therefore, the Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has perfectly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by respective parties and rightly examined the same evidence and finding is based upon legal evidence and conclusion is perfectly justified based on records. Therefore, the Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [Para 28]

       Law Laid Down :

       So long as decision of Apex Court remains in statute book and not overruled it is binding on High Court.

       Case Law Analysis :

       Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post, Vaikam and Others vs. Theyyam Joseph & Ors., 1996 (8) SCC 489 = AIR 1996 SCW 1365 [Para 10];; Union of India & Anr. vs. Kamlesh Kumar Bharti, 1998 (9) SCC 727 [Para 11].-Overruled

       Sunder Mani vs. State Bank of India 1976 (3) SCR 160 [Para 13];; General Manager, Telecom vs. S. Srinivasan Rao & Ors. 1997 (2) GLH 990 [Para 13];; Rangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa, 1978 (2) SCC 213 = AIR 1978 SC 548 = AIR 1978 SC 969 [Para 15];; All India Radio vs. Santosh Kumar & Anr. etc., 1998 I CLR 684 [Para 16];; Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd and Another. vs. Smt. Vilasiniben Ramchandran and Ors., 2007 AIR SCW 2655 [Para 18];; State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, AIR 1982 SC 1249 [Para 22];; Daman Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 973 [Para 23];; Mohan Lal. vs. Management of M/s. Bharat Electricity, AIR 1981 SC 1253 [Para 24].-Relied on

       Conclusion :

       Postal departmental is an industry, therefore, termination of respondent service without complying with the mandatory requirements under the I.D. Act is invalid - Tribunal, therefore, rightly set aside the termination and awarded back wages.

       Cases Referred :

       Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees Association, Prabhadevi Telephone Exchange vs. Union of India, 1997 (6) SCC 723 = 1997 AIR SCW 2819;; Corporation of Nagpur, AIR 1960 SC 675;; General Manager, Telecom vs. a. Srinivasa Rao, 1997 (8) SCC 767 = 1998 AIR SCW 270 = 1997 (2) GLH 990;; King. Emperor vs. Barendar Kumar Ghose, 1924 (28) Cal WN 70 = AIR 1924 Cal 257 (FB);; Madhusudan vs. Chandrabati, AIR 1917 PC 30;; Somasundaran vs. Subramanian, AIR 1826 PC 136;; R.V. Mellor, 1858 (7) COX CC 454;; Sarat Chandra vs. Bibhabati Debi, 1921 (34) Cal LJ 302 = AIR 1921 Cal 584;; State of U.P. vs. Jai Bir Singh, 2005 AIR SCW 2773;; Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees Association, AIR 1997 SC 2817;; University of Delhi, AIR 1963 SC 1873.

       Decided in Favour of :

       Respondent

       Petition Dismissed