LexSADHU RAM versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SA:DHU RAM
v.
DELHI TRANSPORT COR;PORATION
August 25, 1983
(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A. P. SEN AND Ei: s. VENKATARAMIAH; 1J.l
Constitution of India-Art. 226-Exercisi of Jurisdiction by High Court-
Scope of.
The services of the appellant-workman were terrr.iin'ated by the Mailage-
ment of the respondent. On a report , from ·_the Conciliation Officer the
Government referred the dis"pute to the Labour Court. The Management
contended that the workman had not raised 'aiiy denia'nd With ·111e Management
and that there was, therefore, no industrial dispute. The Labour Court found
as a fact that the Union had raised a valid di.:mand with the Management and
that the termination of services of the workman was illegal and· mala fide. The
Management invoked the jurisdiction of the l-iigli Court under· Att. 2'.i6: AJ
Single-Judge of the High Coi.Jrt quashed the Award of the Labour' Ccillfl Ori
the finding tliat no derD.and had been raisCd and· there was ·nb irtdusirial" dispute'·
Which could be properly referred bY the Government for adjudication.' The .
judgment· of the Single Judge.was affirnied by the Division Bench.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD : The High Court was not right in interfering With tlie ·Awanf
of the Labour Court under Art. 226 on· a mei.nechriicillity, [728.E)
Thejurisdicti'on under Art. 226 of the ConStittitioll is tnily· Wide' but;
fot-that very reason; it has to·-be exercised With great circumspection. It-is not
for the High Court to constitute itself into an appellate court over Tribunals ·
constituted under special legislations to resolve disputes of a kind qualiiB.tivCIY~
different from ordinary civil disputes and to readjutlicate upOn qiI.eStiOilS'of
fact decided by those Tribunals·. That the questiOns decided pertai:ri'to JtiiiS.:-
dictionalfacts does not entitle the H18h Court to interfere· With'tlie·fiiidihgs·:orl'
jtitisdictiorial facts·which:the'TribUnal is well competent tofdecide: [727·D-F],
In the instant case there was a conciliation proceeding, the conciliatioll
had failed and the Conciliation -Officer had so reportCd to the GoVer'nrife!nt·
The Go-Vernment was justified in thinkirlg'th'1t" there was an·. indtistrial ciisphterr
and refefring it to the Labour Cotirt. The:Jiigh· Coutt's··diSCUs~iOrl·'Oii wtutF
waS art·indUstrial dispute and-what' was a jurisdictiOnal fact Was· an· ehtirely·
unnecessary exercise. (727 G-F; 728 A-B]
Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. v. The l'ndustriill
Trib1~iihl 0/
Gujarar;·c1968J I s:c.R: 515, exiilaine'd and distinghished:
A
c
D
E
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
726
SUPREMB COURT. REPORTS
{!983j 3 S.R.C.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil -Appeal No. 6346 of
1983.
Appeal by Special leave from the' Judgment and Order dated
~
the 18th January, 1980 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 62 of
1973.
D.N. Vohra, Anil Kumar Gupta and Miss Kai/ash Mehta for the
Appellant.
.
.
l
-
)
S.N. Bhandari and Arunesewar Gupta for the Respondent.
"
The Order of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Special leave granted.
Sadhu Ram was a: probationer Bus Conductor whose services
were terminated on 7th September, 1967 by the respondent, the Delhi
Transport Corporation. On the failure of conciliation proceedings,
the Conciliation Officer, Delhi submitted his report to the Delhi
Administration under s. 12 ( 5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, where-
upon the Delhi Administration referred the following dispute to the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi for adjudication : "Whether
the termination of service, of Shri Sadhu Ram, conductor is illegal
and unjustified, and if so what directions are necessary in this
respect". The Union on behalf of the wmkman and the management
appeared before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. On behalf
of the management, a contention was raised that the workman had
not raised anY. demand with the management and that there was
therefore, no industrial dispute. The reference was - accordingly
claimed to. be incompetent. The Labou_r
Court overruled the
contention, holding as a fact that the Union had raised a valid
demand with the management. Ou merits, the Labour Court gave
the following finding : "I, therefore, hold that the termination order
in respect of this workman is illegal and malafide and that amounts
to colourable exercise of power." Consequently, the management
was directed to reinstate the workman
with effect
from 8th
September, 1967 with the full back wages and benefExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.