GENERAL MANAGER, ELECTRICAL RENGALI HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT, ORISSA AND OTHERS versus SRI GIRIDHARI SAHU AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 293 · Decided: 12-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
293
GENERAL MANAGER, ELECTRICAL RENGALI HYDRO
ELECTRIC PROJECT, ORISSA AND OTHERS
v.
SRI GIRIDHARI SAHU AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 8071 of  2010)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2019
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
s. 33A r/w. s. 33  – Application – By NMR workers/employees
of appellant  – Alleging that they were prevented from discharging
their duties, by fraudulently and by applying undue influence getting
their signatures on papers of a ‘Voluntary Separation Scheme’, (VSS)
– Labour Court directed their reinstatement holding that the VSS
was thrust upon them  – Writ petition before High Court was dismissed
on the ground that there was no jurisdictional error in passing the
award  – Appeal to Supreme Court  – Held: There are no sufficient
pleading with regard to fraud and undue influence  – The workmen
had failed to plead and prove and it being a case of no evidence,
the Award passed by the Labour Court became infirm and was liable
to be interfered with  – The employer has produced ample
documentary evidence to show that the workers voluntarily opted
for the VSS  – Thus no case was made out before the Labour Court
for invoking s. 33A r/w. s. 33.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Order VI r. 4  – Rules of pleadings  – Applicability of  – To the
proceedings u/s. 33A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947  – Held: The
proceedings u/s. 33A not being a civil suit, provisions of CPC would
not apply  – However, the salutary principles engrained therein
would apply.
Writ:
Writ of Certiorari  – Nature and scope of  – Held: Jurisdiction
to issue writ of certiorari is supervisory and not appellate  – It is
intended to correct jurisdictional excesses  – An erroneous decision
   [2019] 12 S.C.R. 293
293
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
294
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
in respect of a matter which falls within the authority of the Tribunal
would not entitle a writ applicant for a writ of Certiorari  – It can be
issued when a jurisdictional error is clearly established  – An error
of law which becomes vulnerable to judicial scrutiny by way of
Certiorari must be one which is apparent on the face of the record.
Words and Phrases:
‘Fraud’, ‘Misrepresentation’ and ‘Undue influence’  –
Meaning of.
‘Fraud’ and ‘Misrepresentation’  – Distinction between  –
Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 An erroneous decision in respect of a matter
which falls within the authority of the Tribunal would not entitle a
writ applicant for a writ of Certiorari. However, if the decision
relates to anything collateral to the merit, an erroneous decision
upon which, would affect its jurisdiction, a writ of Certiorari would
lie. [Para 21] [308-E]
1.2 The jurisdiction to issue writ of certiorari is supervisory
and not appellate. The Court considering a writ application of
Certiorari will not don the cap of an Appellate Court.  It will not
reappreciate evidence.  The Writ of Certiorari is intended to
correct jurisdictional excesses. A writ of prohibition would issue
when a Tribunal or authority has not yet concluded its proceedings.
Once a decision is rendered by a body amenable to Certiorari
jurisdiction, Certiorari could be issued when a jurisdictional error
is clearly established. [Para 29] [315-B-C]
1.3 The jurisdictional error may be from failure to observe
the limits of its jurisdiction.  It may arise from the procedure
adopted by the body after validly assuming jurisdiction.  It may
act in violation of principles of natural justice.  The body whose
decision which comes under attack may decide a collateral fact
which is also a jurisdictional fact and assume jurisdiction. Such a
finding of fact is not immune from being interfered with by a Writ
of Certiorari.  As far as the finding of fact which is one within the
jurisdiction of the court, it is ordinarily a matter ‘off bounds’ for
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
295
G.M., ELECTRICAL RENGALI HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT,
ORISSA v. SRI GIRIDHARI SAHU
the writ court.  This is for the reason that a body which has
jurisdiction to decide the matter has the jurisdiction to decide it
correctly or wrongly. It would become a mere error and that too
an error of fact.  However, gross it may amount to, it does not
amount to an error of law.  An error of law which becomes
vulnerable to judicial scrutiny by way of Certiorari must also
be one which is apparent on the face of the record.  [Para 29]
[315-D-F]
1.4 As to what constitutes an error apparent on the face of
the record, is a matter to be deci

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.