LexSHRI AMBICA MILLS CO., LTD. versus SHRI S. B. BHATT AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] '960 been clearly proved. The charge was that he had n L 7H . • plotted and hatched a conspiracy for assaulting the ~ .. ~;1, ;;,~,,,. General Superintendent, Weaving Master, Chief Engi- •· neer,. Factory Manager and the Controller of Produc- 111 WorA•n tion. The details of the charge were specified, and at . - the enquiry it was held that these charges had been G•J••'••1•'••• J. proved. There is no doubt that these charges, if prov- ed, deserve the punishment of dismissal under the relevant standing orders. The Tribunal, however, pur- ported to examine the propriety of the finding record- ed against HM' Prasad and came to the conclusion that the said finding was not justified on the merits. As' we have already pointed out the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the findings of the enquiry as it has purported to do. The result is that the conclusion of the Tribunal in regard to all the workmen is unjustified and without jurisdiction. 1960 The appeal is accordingly allowed, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside, and approval is accorded to the action taken by the appellant under s. 6E. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. SHRI AMBICA MILLS CO., LTD. v. SHRI S. B. BHATT AND ANOTHER (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) Wages, Payment of-furisdictio" of Authority-Scope and extent-High Court's power, to issue writ-Payment of Wages Act, z936 (4 of r936), ss. z5, r6-Constitution of India, Arts. 226 and 227. An. award, called the Standardisation Award, fixing the wages for different categories of workers in the textile mills at , Ahmedabad was made by the Industrial Tribunal. The wages of clerks were, however, settled by a subsequent agreement bet- ween the Ahmedabad Mill Owners' Association and the Textile I 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 221 Labour Association. Clauses 2 and 5 of the said agreement were r960 as follows.- "2. That this agreement shall apply to all the Clerks Shd Ambica Mills employed in the local mills, i.e., persons doing clerical work, Co., Lid. that is those who do routine work of writing, copying or making v. calculations and shall also include compounders and assistant Sbi s: B. B4ott compounders who are qualified and who are employed in the .S- ,1,..,4,, local mills. 5. A separate scale for those of the employees who occupy the position lower than that of a full-fledged Clerk but higher than that of an operative will be provided as under:- Rs. 40.3-70-EB-4-90-5-ro5 This scale will be applicable in case of ticket-checker, coupons-seller, tally-boy, scale-boy, production-checker, third- counter, cloth measurer or yard-counter, fine-reporter, cloth/ yarn-examiner, department storeman, cut-looker and those others who have not been included above but who can properly fall under the above category." The respondents moved the Authority under s. 16 of the Payment of Wages Act. 1936 (4 of 1936), for an order against the appellant for payment of their delayed wages. They claimed lo be semi-clerks, lower than full-fledged clerks but higher than operatives, and as such governed by cl. 5 of the agreement. Tho Authority held against them and the app'ellate Authority affirmed its decision holding that cl. 2 of the agreement deter- mined the applicability of cl. 5 and since the respondents did not come within cl. 2 thev could not maintain their claim under cl. 5. The High Couri, on an application under Art. 226 and Art. 227 of the Constitution, took a contrary view and set aside the orders of the Authorities and directed a rehear- ing. In this Court the appellant mills urged that (r) the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Arts. 226 and 227 in setting aside the order ot the appellate Authority and (2) the Authority had itself exceeded its jurisdiction under s. 15 of the Act in entertaining the applications of the respondents made under s. 16 of the Act. · Held, that both ·the contentions must be negatived. The High Court has power under A rt. 226 of the Constitu- tion to issue a ·writ of ce.-tiorari not only in cases of illegal exer- cise of jurisdiction but also to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record, although not errors of fact even though so apparent. No unfailing test can, however, be laid down when an error of law is an error apparent on the lace of the record and the rule that it must be self-evident,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.