P.G.I. OF M.E. AND RESEARCH, CHANDIGARH versus RAJ KUMAR ETC.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 350 · Decided: 02-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P.G.I. OF M.E. AND RESEARCH, CHANDIGARH 
v. 
RAJ KUMAR ETC. 
, 
NOVEMBER 2, 2000 
B 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
labour laws : 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-B, 25-F-Payment of back 
C wages for reinstated workman with continuity in service-Tribunal granting 
60% back wages-High Court in a writ petition modifying the order of 
Tribunal by granting full back wages without giving reasons-Validity of-
Held not valid-Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 
Appellant terminated the services of respondent who has completed 
D 240 days of service. In appeal, the Labour Court held that the respondent was 
illegally terminated and directed reinstatement with continuity of service 
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 awarding 60% of back wages. Single 
Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondent granting full 
back wages. Division Bench of the High Court al~o concurred with the decision 
E of the1 Single Judge. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. While it is true that in the event of failure in compliance 
with Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 
F 1947 in the normal course of events the Tribunal is supposed to award back 
wages in its entirety but the discretion is left with the Tribunal in the matter 
of grant of back wages and it is this discretion which must be exercised in 
a judicial and judicious manner depending upon the facts and circumstances 
of each case. The Labour Court being the final court of facts came to a 
conclusion that payment of60% wages would comply with the requirement 
G of law. The finding of perversity or being erroneous or not in accordance 
with law shall have to be recorded with reasons in order to assail the finding 
of the Tribunal or the Labour Court. It is not for the High Court to go into 
the factual aspects of the matter and there is an existing limitation on the 
High Court to that effect. In the event, however the finding of fact is based 
H on any misappreciation of evidence that would be deemed to be an error of 
350 
P.G.I. OF M.E. AND RESEARCH v. RAJ KUMAR 
351 
law, which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. The law is well settled A 
to the effect that finding of the Labour Court cannot be challenged in a 
proceeding in a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material 
evidence adduced before the Labour Court was insufficient or inadequate 
though however perverse the order would warrant intervention of the High 
Court. [353-G; 354-B, CJ 
B 
1.2. Payment of back wages having a discretionary element involved in 
it has to be dealt with, in the facts and circumstances of each case and no 
straight jacket formula can be evolved, though, however, there is statutory 
sanction to direct payment of back wages in its entirety. It is well settled that 
cases are to be decided on the basis of its peculiar facts and circumstances C 
and no generalised principle can be deduced but facts shall have to be 
considered in its true and proper perspective. (355-A-B, E] 
1.3. The issue raised in the matter of back wages has been dealt with 
by the Labour Court in the manner as above having regard to the facts and 
circumstances of the matter in the issue upon exercise of its discretion and D 
obviously in a manner which cannot but be judicious in nature. In the event 
however, the High Court's interference is sought for, there exists an obligation 
on the part of the High Court to record in the judgment, the reasoning before 
however denouncing a judgment of an inferior Tribunal, in the absence of 
which, the judgment cannot stand the scrutiny of otherwise being reasonable. 
There ought to be available in the judgment itself a finding about the perversity E 
or the erroneous approach of the Labour Court and it is only upon recording 
the reasons, the High Court has the authority to interfere. Unfortunately, the 
High Court did not feel it expedient to record any reason far less any 
appreciable reason before denouncing the judgment. [335-F-H] 
Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishna, AIR (1964) SC 477, relied on. 
Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Work Pvt. 
Ltd, [1979) 1 SCR 563; Rattan Singh v. Union of India, [1997] 11 SCC 396 
and P.G.l.ME. & Research, Chandigarh v. Soma & Anr., Civil appeal No. 
12558 of 1996, referred to 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6576 of 
1999 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.99 of the 

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