The power of the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited and cannot re-appreciate the entire evidence let in before the Labour Court unless the finding of the Labour Court is perverse.

S.NAGAMUTHU, J.

1. The second respondent herein raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.579 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai alleging that he was stopped from work with effect from 07.04.1993 without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. He prayed for an award to reinstate him from service with backwages and all the other monetary benefits. The Labour Court by award dated 22.08.1996 dismissed the said petition holding that the second respondent herein is not entitled for the reliefs as sought for by him in the petition. Challenging the same, the second respondent filed W.P.No.1958 of 1997 before this Court. By order dated 28.10.2003, a learned Single Judge of this Court set aside the award of the Labour Court and remitted the matter back to the Labour Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, I.D.No.579 of 1993 was again taken up by the learned Principal Labour Court, Chennai and ultimately, the Labour Court by award dated 30.01.2004 held that the nonemployment of the second respondent herein is not justified and accordingly, granted the relief of reinstatement with backwages and all the other monetary benefits. Challenging the said award, the petitioner Management filed W.P.No.10099 of 2004. By order dated 11.06.2007, a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition. It is against the same, the petitioner Management has come up with this writ appeal.

2. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records carefully.

3. It is contended by the appellant that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge of this Court have overlooked the evidence of M.W.1 who has deposed that the appellant Airlines was operating only four days in a week, that too one flight in a day and as such, the question of reinstating the second respondent in service with backwages etc., would not arise. It is further contended that even assuming that Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act has not been complied with, that by itself would not give raise to an order for reinstatement with backwages. According to the learned counsel, instead, the Labour Court ought to have granted him some compensation. It is further contended that as of now, the service of the second respondent is not at all required as the Airport Authority has taken the entire task of employing people and therefore, the question of reinstating the petitioner in service does not arise.

4. But the learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that in this writ appeal, it is not at all permissible under law to reappraise the entire evidence let in before the Labour Court. Since two Courts below on appreciating the evidence, have held that the second respondent was a workman and he was retrenched from service without following the mandatory provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Act, he is entitled for reinstatement as well as backwages with continuity of service, it is not permissible to reverse the said finding as the findings of the Labour Court cannot be stated to be perverse. The learned counsel would further submit that granting of compensation would not be the appropriate relief to the petitioner.

5. We have considered the above submissions.

6. On appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence let in before the Labour Court, the Labour Court has found that the second respondent was working under the petitioner and therefore, he should not have been retrenched from service without complying with the mandatory provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Act and therefore, the non-employment of the second respondent is illegal. In this finding, we do not find anything perverse.

7. The learned counsel for the Appellant is not in a position to point out any infirmity in the order of the Labour Court so as to hold that the order of the Labour Court is perverse. It is the settled law that the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution