JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The appellant claims to have been appointed and worked as a Messenger with State Bank of India, Kishan Garh Branch continuously from 8.9.1993 to 6.11.1995. Since the services of the appellant were terminated by the Management on 7.11.1995, an industrial dispute was raised by him. On the said dispute being referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, an order was passed on 10.4.2008 holding that since the appellant had not worked for 240 days in a year, the termination of his service was legal and justified. Being aggrieved from the rejection of his claim, the appellant filed W.P(C) No.6775/2008 challenging the decision of the Industrial Tribunal.
The writ petition having been dismissed, he is before us by way of this appeal.
(2.)In Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, 1964 AIR(SC) 477, Supreme Court identified the limitations of Certiorari jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in the following terms:-
"The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or Tribunals; these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdictions. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, 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 dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised."
In Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab, 1976 2 SCC 868, Supreme Court, inter alia, held as under:-
"In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice."
(3.)In the case before us, the Tribunal after considering the evidence produced by the parties, returned a finding of fact that the appellant had not worked with the respondent for at least 240 days in a year. It is not open to this Court to interfere with the findings of fact returned by the Tribunal unless it is shown that the finding is perverse being without any evidence or being a finding which no reasonable person could have returned on the basis of the material available to the Tribunal. This is also not the case of the appellant that the aforesaid finding of fact was recorded by the Tribunal without giving opportunity to him to lead evidence. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged on the ground that the evidence available before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain such a finding. Therefore, we find no good reason to interfere with the aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal which has also been accepted by the learned Single Judge.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.