The main legal point established is the requirement of producing relevant documents to support a claim for reinstatement and the limitations of the writ of certiorari in challenging findings of fact.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the award passed in Reference Case No.33 of 2012 dated 05.06.2014 has been assailed, whereby and whereunder, the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman in favour of the respondent-management by denying the reinstatement in service with back wages.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has joined the duty of the Nagar Nigam, Ranchi in the year 1982 and continued in service till 15.06.2011 but all of a sudden he has been removed from service without issuing any notice, therefore, he has come on road, hence a dispute has been raised by making an application before the appropriate authority, the matter has been placed before the Conciliating Officer but when no decision has been taken within the stipulated period as provided under the provision of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , an application has been filed under the provision of Section 2(A) of the Act, 1947 for demanding reinstatement in service with back wages.

The Labour Court treating the said demand as reference, registered a case being Reference Case No.33 of 2012 and issued notice to the Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, so that the reference be answered.

The Labour Court after hearing the parties had passed the award negating the claim of the petitioner by denying reinstatement in his favour which has been assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition.

3. Mr. Sumir Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has raised the issue of perversity in the finding to the effect that the circular, reference of which has been made i.e. on 18.06.1993 wherein the decision was taken to remove all Class-IV employees who have been appointed on or after 01.08.1985 and have been appointed prior to 01.08.1985 and worked continuously for a period of 240 days, they have been decided to be given preference in appointment, in service however, even accepting the plea of the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner has been appointed after 01.08.1985 even though in view of the subsequent circular issued on 20.05.1996 by which the cut-off date by 01.08.1985 has been extended to that of 31.12.1990 and admittedly the petitioner has been appointed beyond the aforesaid period, therefore, he is entitled to be considered for reinstatement in service but that aspect of the matter has not been considered hence the award is perverse and accordingly not sustainable in the eye of law.

His further submission is that the Tribunal has proceeded with the matter treating it a case of regularization however it is not a case of regularization since the petitioner has already been removed from service, therefore, it is the case of reinstatement and to that effect the reference has also been made by the Labour Court and as such the entire award is without any application of mind.

4. Mr. L.C.N. Shahedeo, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation has argued by submitting that there is no infirmity in the award rather the Labour Court has taken into consideration the scope of circular dated 18.06.1993 whereby and whereunder the cut-off date of 01.08.1985 has been fixed and the petitioner has failed to show any document before the Labour Court justifying his claim that he has been appointed against the Class-IV post prior to 01.08.1985 rather he has been appointed by way of a seasonal labourer and performed his duty intermittently under the corporation, hence, has not completed continuous period of 240 days service and as such the Circular dated 18.06.1993 is not applicable.

His further submission, while rebutting the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, with respect to the applicability of the subsequent Circular dated 20 th May, 1996, is that the aforesaid Circular has never been brought on record before the Labour Court and therefore, it cannot be said that the Labour Court has committed any illegality as because the perversity can only be