LexM/S. ESSEN DEINKI versus RAJIV KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MIS. ESSEN DEINKI v. RAJIV KUMAR OCTOBER 29, 2002 [UMESH C. BANERJEE AND Y .K. SABHAR WAL, JJ.] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 25F-Workman-Services- Termination of on ground of unsatisfactory work-Non-compliance of section A B 25F as workman failing to complete 240 days of service-Reference-Labour C Court holding that as workman had not completed 240 days of service termination valid and compliance of section not required-High Court holding that workman completed 240 days reversed the order of labour Court- Justification of-Held, the proof of working for 240 days is on employee and workman has stated at the stage of evidence that he has not worked for 240 days, thus High Court erred in reversing the order of labour Court-High D Court could not overturn the finding of fact without assailing order of labour Court as otherwise perverse-Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 227-Finding of fact-Interference with. Respondent-workman joined appellant as helper. Appellant terminated services of respondent-workman as his work was not satisfactory. It also did E not comply with the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the respondent-workman had not completed 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months. Respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute. Labour Court held that since respondent-workman had not completed 240 days of service his termination was valid and there was no requirement of F compliance of Section 25F of the Act and passed an award in favour of appellant Respondent-workman filed a writ petition. High Court reappreciated the evidence and held that workmen in fact completed 240 days of service and set aside the award of Labour Court. Hence the present appeal. Respondent contended that High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under G Article 227 of the Constitution not only exceeded its jurisdiction but clearly erred in interfering with the finding of fact that the workman had not completed 240 days of service. Allowing the appeal, the Court 499 H 500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A HELD: I. The requirement of completing 240 days in service under section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be disputed and it is for the employee concerned to prove that he has in fact completed 240 days in the last preceding 12 months' period. It has been the definite case of the workman concerned whilst at the stage of evidence that he has not worked B for 240 days. It is also a finding of fact which High Court cannot possibly overturn without assailing the order of Labour Court as otherwise perverse. High Court unfortunately did not deal with the matter in that perspective. Thus High Court committed a manifest error in reversing the order of Labour Court c 1505-D-F; 506-CI Nibaran Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu, AIR (1963) SC 1895; Mani Nariman Daruwala and Bharucha (deceased) through Lrs. and Ors. v. Phiroz N. Bhatena and Ors., AIR 11991) SC 1494; Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation, 11985) 4 SCC 71 and Savita Chemicals (P) Ltd v. Dyes and Chemical Workers Union and Anr., 11999) 2 D sec 143, referred to. Range Forest Officer v. S. T. Hadimani, 12002) 3 SCC 25, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7038 of2002. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.2002 of the Punjab and Haryana E High Court in C.W.P. No. 15275 of 1999. Ranjit Kumar, S.S. Ray and Ms. Rakhi Ray, for the Appellant. S.K. Bansal, Roopak Bansal and Harbans Lal Bajaj, for the Respondent. F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BANERJEE, J. Leave granted. Generally speaking exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited and restrictive in nature. It.is so exerdsed in the normal circumstances for want of jurisdiction, errors of law, perverse findings and G 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 there of or not H · based on any material whatsoever resulting in manifest injustice, interference ~. ESSEN DEINKI v. RAJIV KUMAR [BANERJEE, J.] 501 under the Article is not
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.