http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 5

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 7038 of 2002

PETITIONER:

M/s Essen Deinki

RESPONDENT:

Rajiv Kumar

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/10/2002

BENCH:

Umesh C. Banerjee & Y.K. Sabharwal.

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

BANERJEE, J.

Leave granted.

Generally speaking, exercise of jurisdiction under Article

227 of the Constitution is limited and restrictive in nature. It is

so exercised in the normal circumstances for want of jurisdiction,

errors of law, perverse findings and gross violation of natural

justice, to name a few. It is merely a revisional jurisdiction and

does not confer an unlimited authority or prerogative to correct all

orders or even wrong decisions made within the limits of the

jurisdiction of the Courts below. The finding of fact being within

the domain of the inferior Tribunal, except where it is a perverse

recording thereof or not based on any material whatsoever

resulting in manifest injustice, interference under the Article is not

called for:

The observations above however, find affirmance in the

decision of this Court in Nibaran Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath

Ghughu (AIR 1963 SC 1895). In Nibaran (supra) this Court has

been rather categorical in recording that the jurisdiction so

conferred is by no means appellate in nature for correcting errors

in the decision of the subordinate Courts or Tribunals but is merely

a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the

bounds of their authority. More recently, in Mani Nariman

Daruwala and Bharucha (deceased) through LRs & Ors. v. Phiroz

N. Bhatena & Ors. (AIR 1991 SC 1494), this Court in the similar

vein stated :

"In the exercise of this jurisdiction the High Court

can set aside or ignore the findings of fact of an inferior

Court or tribunal if there was no evidence to justify

such a conclusion and if no reasonable person could

possibly have come to the conclusion which the Court

or tribunal who has come or in other words it is a

finding which was perverse in law. Except to the

limited extent indicated above the High Court has no

jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact."

Needless to record that there is total unanimity of judicial

precedents on the score that error must be that of law and patently

on record committed by the inferior Tribunal so as to warrant

intervention it ought not to act as a Court of appeal and there is

no dissention or even a contra note being sounded at any point of

time till date. Incidentally, the illegality, if there be any, in an

order of an inferior Tribunal, it would however be a plain exercise

of jurisdiction under the Article to correct the same as otherwise

the law Courts would fail to subserve the needs of the society since

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 5

illegality cannot even be countenanced under any circumstances.

In this context reference may also be made to a still later

decision of this Court in the case of Savita Chemicals (P) Ltd. v.

Dyes & Chemical Workers’ Union & Anr. (1999 (2) SCC 143),

wherein this Court in paragraph 19 of the Report observed :

". Under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, the High Court could not have set aside any

finding reached by the lower authorities where two

views were possible and unless those findings were

found to be patently bad and suffering from clear errors

of law. .."

Adverting however, to the factual score at this juncture, it

appears that the Respondent-workman joined the services of the

Appellant as a helper on 1st July, 1990 and continued till 26th

February, 1991. The service was terminated however, on the

ground that in his short stay with the Appellant his work was not

found to be of desired standard. The Appellant did not feel it

expedient, however, to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F

by reason of non-completion of 240 days in the preceding 12

calendar months. As a matter of fact it has been the contention of

the Appellant at all stages tha