ORDER :

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records culminated in the impugned common award dated 08.02.2016 made in I.D.No.91 of 2014 passed by the first respondent and to quash the same.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

Claiming that the "Bureau of Civil Aviation Security" [BCAS] had issued an order requiring All International Airlines to stop self-handling of security and to appoint an Indian Domestic Carrier to carry out security functions, the petitioner-Management had terminated the services of all the respondents-workmen from their various capacities in their security division. The termination order came to be challenged by these affected workmen in various Industrial Disputes before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai and by a Common Award dated 08.02.2016, the disputes came to be allowed, by directing the Management to reinstate the workmen with 50% of their back wages, together with continuity of service and other attendant benefits. Challenging these Awards, the present Writ Petitions have been filed.

3. While the learned counsel for the petitioner-Management placed several grounds touching upon the factual matrix of the disputes and questioned the Award, the learned counsel for the workmen submitted that such re-appreciation of evidence under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is impermissible. The other ground raised by the workmen was that in case of retrenchment, the Management is required to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as ‘ID Act’] and since the Management had not adhered to the principle of “last come first go”, the termination itself, is bad in law.

4. Before the Industrial Tribunal, the Management had not let in any oral or documentary evidences. Whereas the workman, namely, T.Jenifer Prasanna Kumari in W.P.No.13603 of 2016, had herself examined as W.W.1 and had let in evidence on behalf of herself and other workmen and had marked 19 documents.

5. The Industrial Tribunal had placed reliance on the oral evidence of W.W.1 and found that apart from the security service work assigned to these workmen, they were also handling other work such as pelletization of cargo, release of cargo, escort of valuable cargo, acceptance of dangerous goods, etc., and Ex.W1, which is the appointment order, does not specify the nature of duties to be carried out by the workmen. Since the Management did not produce any document to substantiate the nature of work of these workmen, the claim of the Management that they were not ‘workmen’ as defined under the ID Act, was negatived. This apart, the Industrial Tribunal found that, in the list of 12 security service clerks engaged by the Management in their order of seniority, which was not questioned by the Management, the Management had retained some of the juniors to that of the respondents-workmen herein and accordingly held that the termination was in violation of Section 25(G) of the ID Act.

6. It is the settled proposition of law that the scope of interference to an award of the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court will not be normally interfered by the High Court exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but for certain exceptions like correcting errors of jurisdiction or extending the jurisdiction or violation of Principles of Natural Justice or Award based on "no evidence", etc. While demarcating such exceptions, it is also been held that the Tribunal or Labour Court cannot reopen or question the appreciation of evidence in Writ Proceedings.

7. In Syed Yakoob V. K.S.Radhakrishnan and Others reported in AIR 1964 SC 477, such a proposition was held in the following manner:-

“7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari