LexM/S ATLAS CYCLE (HARYANA) LTD. versus KITAB SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 611 MIS ATLAS CYCLE (HARYANA) LTD. v. KITAB SINGH (Civil Appeal No. 673 of 2013) A JANUARY 24, 2013 B [P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950: Arts. 226 and 227 - Jurisdiction of High Court - Writ of C certiorari - High Court setting aside the award ofLabour Court and directing reinstatement of workman with 25% back wages - Held: It is settled law that when Labour Court arrived at a finding overlooking the materials on record, it wou/9 amount to perversity and writ Court would be fully justified in interfering o with the said conclusion - If a finding of fact is based on no evidence that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari - In the instant case, the issue whether resignation of workman was voluntary and the factum of complaint sent by him immediately were not · E adverted to by Labour Court - High Court thoroughly analyzed all the aspects and arrived at the correct conclusion - Labour law. The respondent-workman, who was employed by the appellant company on piece rate basis in the year 1977, F wrote a letter to the Chief Minister on 7.10.1992, stating that on 30.9.1992 in the evening he was beaten up, given electric shock and was forced to write a resignation letter, on the allegation that he committed a theft of the goods of the factory and on the morning of 1.10.1992 when he G went to the factory, he was not allowed to enter. The workman also sent a notice dated 13.10.1992 to the appellant company. The Reference made to the Labour Court was dismissed. However, the single Judge of the 611 H 612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R. A High Court, in the writ petition filed by the workman, set aside the award and directed his reinstatement with 25% back wages. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Company was dismissed. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Whether the complaint was sent by the .workman on 07.10.1992 and the resignation tendered by him on 01.10.1992 was voluntary or not have not been adverted to by the Labour Court. These are the real C Issues In the case. As rightly observed by the Division Bench of the High Court, there are contradictory findings by the Labour Court with regard to the claim of the workman that he was tortured by the Management on 30.09.1992 and was made to write the resignation letter D on 01.10.1992. Again, It was rlghtly observed by the Division Bench that certain relevant facts such as the workman had been In service since 1977 and In such circumstance whether there Is any need to resign without any acceptable reason that too without any monetary E Incentive and, further, the complaint on the same day to the Management and higher authorities Including the Chief Minister, were not at all considered by the Labour Court and It merely accepted that the workman tendered the resignation In his own writing. [para 9) [620·F·H: 621· F A·B] 1.2. This Court Is satisfied that the single Judge of the High Court thoroughly analysed all the aspects and arrived at a correct conclusion. It Is settled law that when the Labour Court arrived at a finding overlooking the G materials on record, It would amount to perversity and the writ Court would be fully justified In Interfering with the said concluslon. It Is true that the High Court exercising writ jurisdiction would not assume the role of the appellate court, however, the High Court Is well within Its power to H Interfere If It Is shown that In recording the said finding, ATLAS CYCLE (HARYANA) LTD. v. KITAB SINGH 613 the Tribunal/Labour Court had erroneously refused to A admit the admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted any inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. If a finding of fact is based oo no evidence that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. B [para 11] [621-C-F] Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. 2003 (2) Suppl.· SCR 290 = (2003) 6 SCC 675 - relied on 1.3. On going through the entire reasoning of the C Labour Court, materials placed and stand taken by the workman and the Management, this Court is satisfied that the single Judge of the High Court was fully justified in interfering with the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court which has been rightly affirmed by the Division D Bench. [para 12] [621-F-G] Case Law Reference: 2003 (2) Supp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.