Employer in relation to the Management of Food Corporation of India v. Anil Kumar

06.05.1984 which was challenged by him before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Dhanbad wherein award was passed on 08.08.1990, holding therein that the workman had completed 240 days of service and since he had not been paid retrenchment compensation, so his termination of service was wrong and a direction was made for his reinstatement. After his reinstatement in service on

10.05.1991, the workman started discharging his duties in the capacity of casual worker. It is the further case of the Management that on 03.02.1995, a Circular was issued inviting applications from internal candidates fulfilling eligibility criteria for filling up the post of Hindi Typist. Though a co-worker applied for the said regular post, but the workman/respondent did not apply for the same and chose to raise industrial dispute claiming regularization of service and got a reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act vide Reference Case No. 76 of 1997. The said reference was decided in favour of the workman holding the concerned workman is entitled for regularization as Hindi Typist on regular basis since 13.12.1991 with full back wages and also entitled for pay protection from 08.05.1984 [3] and a direction was passed to the Management to implement the Award within 30 days from the date of publication of the same. The writ petitioner-Management, being aggrieved with the said award, has approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(L) No. 3745 of 2009, wherein, the plea has been taken that the order of regularization passed by the Tribunal is in the teeth of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors., 2006 (4) SCC 1 wherein it has been held that the benefits of one time regularization to irregular workers who have put in more than ten years of service, cannot be extended to those who are in service only by virtue of orders of Courts and Tribunals. The concerned workman has not been able to bring on record the appointment letter nor did he possess the requisite qualification. The concerned workman never appeared in any selection process held by the Management. The concerned workman did not fulfill the conditions and criteria as laid down in F.C.I. Staff Regulation, 1971, as such, direction to regularize the workman in service is totally contrary to law making the award unsustainable and accordingly, the same is fit to be set aside. The plea was taken on behalf of the workman that there is no error in the award dated 08.05.2009 passed in Reference Case No.76 of 1997 since the same is based on evidence on record. The workman was appointed on 04.12.1982 and since then he is in continuous service without any break and he is still holding the post under the writ petitioner-Management. According to the workman, there is clear finding of the Tribunal that the F.C.I., Regional Office, Patna had written a letter to the District Manager, F.C.I., Gaya for appointment of [4] casual typist and approval was given by the Regional Office on

01.12.1982 on which post the workman was appointed after interview and the typing test and he is continuing to the said post. The further plea was taken about long continuous service of more than 25 years which itself is sufficient to prove eligibility of the workman. The learned Single Judge, on appreciation of the argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the finding recorded by the Tribunal in the award, has dismissed the writ petition refusing to interfere with the award dated 08.05.2009 against which the present intra-court appeal has been filed.

4. Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-Management has taken the plea that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact as also the legal issues in right perspective, more particularly, without taking into consideration the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra) which restrict to regularize the services of the daily wagers. Further, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the lack of required eligibility as also skill of typing test and ignoring the same, award has been passed in favour of the workman and when the same has been assailed before this Court, the learned Single Judge has also not appreciated the fact in right perspective, therefore, the award impugned as also the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference by this Court.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner-Management, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded [5] by the learned Single Judge. This Court, before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deems it fit and proper to refer certain undisputed facts for proper adjudication of the lis. The dispute arose by way of reference being Reference Case No. 76 of 1997 in terms of the provision under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the effect which reads as under: “Whether the action of the management of FCI, Patna in not regularizing the services of Sh. Anil Kumar, Hindi Typist is legal and justified? If not to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date?”

6. The said dispute was raised by the workman claiming himself to be working since 04.10.1982 as casual Hindi Typist. He claims to be confirmed in service vide order dated 01.12.1982 passed by the Senior Regional Manager, F.C.I., Patna who is the competent authority to appoint casual typist. The workman claims to have worked from

04.10.1982 to 06.05.1984. His service was terminated by the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Gaya w.e.f. 06.05.1984 to that effect a reference was made being Reference Case No. 03 of 1990. “Whether the action of the Management of Food Corporation of India, Anugrahpuri, A.P. Colony, Gaya by not reinstating Sri Anil Kumar, Casual Typist w.e.f. 6.5.84 in service vide order dated 24.4.84 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled?” The said terms of reference was answered vide award dated

08.08.1990.

7. While on the other hand, the case of the writ petitioner-Management is that the order of regularization passed by the Tribunal is in the teeth of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uma Devi (3) (supra) wherein it has been held that the benefits of one time regularization to irregular workers who have put in more than ten years of service, cannot be extended to those who are in service only by virtue [6] of orders of Courts and Tribunals. The concerned workman has not been able to bring on record the appointment letter nor did he possess the requisite qualification. The concerned workman never appeared in any selection process held by the Management. The concerned workman did not fulfill the conditions and criteria as laid down in FCI Staff Regulation, 1971, as such, direction to regularize the workman in service is totally contrary to law making the award unsustainable.

8. The workman after being continued in service on being reinstated vide award passed in Reference Case No. 03 of 1990 has again raised a dispute for his regularization which was referred for its adjudication being Reference Case No. 76 of 1997. The said reference case had been answered by the Tribunal in favour of the workman, the same was the subject matter of the writ petition being W.P.(L) No. 3745 of 2009. The learned Single Judge since has refused to interfere with the said award by dismissing the writ petition against which the present intra-court appeal has been preferred.

9. Thus, two issues have been raised, i.e., (i) Non-consideration of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi (3) (supra). (ii) Lack of eligibility to hold the post of Hindi Typist.

10. This Court, before answering the aforesaid issue, requires to refer the proposition propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi (3) (supra). The said judgment is on consideration of back door entry in public servant. The Hon'ble Apex Court even on consideration of fact about back door entry, has laid down proposition as under paragraph-53 [7] that by way of one time exercise, the States have been directed to regularize the services of the daily wagers, if, the States are in requirement of their service but subject to condition that they have rendered continuous service of 10 years without any aid of interim order passed by the Court of Law and the appointment has been made against the sanctioned post. Pragraph-53 of the said judgment is being reproduced as under: (not explained “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular in S.V. appointments illegal appointments) as Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071] , R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” measure, one-time services a

11. It appears from the award that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the regularization of one Manoj Kumar who was appointed as casual typist and was regularized as typist in the year 1989 on the basis of the award passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also taken note about a Circular issued by the headquarter for regularization of casual workers who have worked for more than 90 days on or before 02.05.1986, yet the workman herein, had not been regularized. The workman has also raised dispute about the availability of the vacancy in the cadre of regular typist as would appear from Exhibit W-11/1 as per which the [8] sanctioned post against Hindi Typist has been shown to be 17 and existing Hindi Typist including casual one is 07. Further, reference of Exhibit W-5 and W-5/1 has also been taken note which reflects about regularizing the concerned workman. The Tribunal has also taken note about deposition of the management witnesses to the effect that the workman is working as casual Hindi Typist and there is no difference between the work of the casual Hindi Typist and permanent Hindi Typist. It further appears from the reference of Exhibit W-3/5 showing vacancy position of Bihar Region as on 31.01.1997 as per which the sanctioned strength of the Hindi Typist was shown to be 07 but existing strength was 06 permanent and 01 casual. The management has also produced the exhibit being Ext. M-5 from which the Tribunal had extracted about the fact that concerned workman was to be regularized as against the sanctioned post only. The Tribunal has also taken note about the award passed in Referenced Case No. 03 of 1990 as per which the workman was directed to be reinstated in service with all back wages and accordingly, the workman was reinstated in service on 10.05.1991. The Tribunal, therefore, takes the points that when the workman was reinstated in service on 10.05.1991, it cannot be presumed that the appointment made therein is not on the sanctioned post, reason being that the Tribunal has considered about the 17 sanctioned post of Hindi Typist in which only 04 have been filled including 01 Hindi Typist as per Ext. W-3/2 and W-3/3. Further, the Tribunal has taken note about Ext. W-3/5 as per which on 31.01.1997 there were 07 sanctioned post of Hindi Typist in [9] which 06 were filled including 01 casual Hindi Typist. The Tribunal from these documents has inferred that there were sanctioned post of Hindi Typist but the concerned workman has not been appointed as Hindi Typist rather he has been appointed as casual Hindi Typist. Therefore, the Tribunal came to the finding that when there was sanctioned strength and the Tribunal had passed the order for reinstatement of the workman on the post of Hindi Typist, the appointment of the concerned workman as casual typist is against the order of Tribunal dated 08.08.1990 passed in Reference Case No. 03 of

1990. The Tribunal has further taken note about the Circular issued by the Headquarter as Ext. W-4 as per which the Regional Manager had been directed that before 02.05.1986 the persons who have worked for three months, they should be regularized. The Tribunal has further taken note of one Circular no.18/199 dated 09.09.1996 which clearly reflects about regularizing the services of all casual/daily rated employees who have continuously worked for more than three months on cut-off dated of 02.05.1986. The Tribunal has further taken note about the fact, being admitted one, that before 02.05.1986 the persons working in the capacity of daily rated employees have been held entitled for regularization without any further test or interview. The Ext. W-5 clearly reflects, having been taken note by the Tribunal, that the Senior Manager wrote to the District Manager, FCI, Gaya for regularization of the concerned workman as Hindi Typist. The Tribunal further has taken note that there is no mention of regularizing as casual Hindi Typist, therefore, the Tribunal came to the finding that the [10] District Manager has not followed the order of Headquarters as contained in Ext. W-5 dated 09.11.1995 which also corroborates from Ext. W-5/1 wherein the concerned workman has been ordered to be regularized as regular Hindi Typist. The Tribunal has further taken note of the fact as under paragraph-7 of the award about sanctioned post on the basis of the Ext. M-1/1 dated 20.04.1990 by which the 02 posts of Hindi Typist have been sanctioned and as per Ext. M-1/2 dated 25.04.1990, 05 posts of Hindi Typist have been sanctioned from conversion and as per Ext. M-3 for Hindi Typist recruitment has been lifted and as per Ext. M-4 which pertains to recruitment and Ext. M-5 there is only application of Hindi Typist on 23.02.1995 and educational qualification of matric or equivalent with 30 words per minute in Hindi Typing. There is no mention of long hand dictation or stenographer from Hindi Typist as per circular letter of the management, Ext. M-5. The Tribunal has also taken note about Ext. M-6 by which 05 persons had appeared for interview of Hindi Typist and there was 03 vacant posts even on 03.07.1995 as per Ext. M-6/1 and only 05 posts have been filled. As per Ext. M-8 there were 07 posts of Hindi Typist in Bihar Region and as per Ext. M-9, on 05.04.1991, there were 07 posts of Hindi Typists having been sanctioned. Further, reference of Ext. M-10 has been made by the Tribunal which is a letter issued by the F.C.I., Regional Office, Arunachal Bhawan, Patna addressed to the District Manager, F.C.I., Gaya for appointment of casual typist and approval has been given by the [11] Regional Office on 01.12.1982 on which post the concerned workman has been engaged as casual Hindi Typist. The Tribunal, on the basis of these documents as has been referred at paragraphs-8 & 9 of the award, came to the conclusion that there were vacancies of Hindi Typist with the management and the concerned workman is getting less salary, i.e., Rs. 1800/- per month whereas the regular employees is getting Rs.8,000/- per month which is nothing but a discriminating attitude between two persons when they are doing same job as regular Hindi Typist and casual Hindi Typist because there is no difference of work between them which has been stated by the MW-2 in his cross-examination. Thus, the Tribunal has recorded the finding to the effect that when there is vacancy as per MW-3 sanctioned strength of 07 and existing 06 permanent and 01 casual, there is no reason to keep 01 casual Hindi Typist for indefinite period. For ready reference, paragraphs-7, 8 & 9 reads as under: “7. As per papers filed by the management Ext. M-1 shows that there are vacancy of 7 Hindi Typists as on 11.7.84 and as per Ext. M-1/1 dated 20.4.90 there was 2 posts of Hindi Typists have been sanctioned and as per Ext. M-1/2 dated 25.4.90, 5 posts of Hindi Typists have been sanctioned from conversion and as per Ext. M-3 for Hindi Typist recruitment has been lifted and as per Ext. M-4 is regarding recruitment and as per Ext.M-5 there is only application of Hindi Typist on 23.2.95 and educational qualification of matrict or equivalent with 30 words per minute in Hindi Typing. There is no mention of long hand dictation or stenographer from Hindi Typist as per circular letter of the management, Ext. M-5. As per Ext.M-6, 5 persons had appeared for Hindi Typists for their interview and there was 3 vacant posts even on 3.7.95 as per Ext. M-6/1 and only 5 posts have been filled. As per Ext. M-8 there is 7 posts of Hindi Typists in Bihar Region and as per Ext. M-9 on 5.4.91, 7 posts of Hindi Typists have been sanctioned. As per Ext. M-10 F.C.I. Regional Office, Arunachal Bhawan, Patna had written to District Manager, F.C.I., Gaya for engagement of casual typist and approval has been given by Regional Office on 1.12.82 on which post the concerned workman has been engaged as casual Hindi Typist.

8. When there is regular vacancy with the management there is no reason to keep such person who has served so long time as casual basis. No [12] information has been sent to the concerned workman for appearing in any examination as it has been admitted by MW-1, MW-1 & MW-3.

9. Documents filed by the management as well as the concerned workman show that there is vacancy of Hindi Typist with the management and the concerned workman is getting less salary i.e. Rs.1800/- per month whereas the regular employee is getting Rs.8000/- per month. It shows discrimination between two persons when they are dong same job as regular Hindi Typist and casual Hindi Typist because there is no difference of work between them which has been stated by MW-2 in his cross-examination. When there is vacancy as per MW-3 sanctioned strength of 7 and existing & permanent and 1 casual, there is no reason to keep one casual Hindi Typist for indefinite period. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the management that the concerned workman is not entitled for regularization as per Uma Devi’s case. In the present case the concerned workman has been ordered for regularization vide Reference Case No. 3/90 dated 8.8.90 passed by CGIT No.2, Dhanbad , w.e.f. 6.5.84. Since there was clear vacancy with the management of sanctioned permanent post, the concerned workman was engaged after passing of the award by the Tribunal as casual workman. It shows to deprive the wages and other benefits to the concerned workman which permament Hindi Typists are getting. So, in the circumstances the concerned workman is entitled for Hindi Typist as regular basis since 13.12.1991 with full back wages and also entitled for pay protection from 6.5.84.”

12. It is evident from the finding recorded by the Tribunal as quoted and referred above that the Tribunal has considered the availability of sanctioned post of the Hindi Typist but even after the adjudication of the Tribunal with respect to Reference Case No. 03 of 1990 about reinstatement in service, the management, in highly improper manner, has appointed the workman as a casual Hindi Typist, as such, considering it to be discriminating, the award has been answered in favour of the workman. The applicability of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi (3) (supra), according to our considered view, will not be applicable in the facts of this case because the management itself has come out with a decision as contained in Circular dated 09.09.1996 whereby and whereunder the casual workers working on or before

02.05.1986 has been decided to be regularized and when there is a decision of the concerned authority for regularizing such workmen who [13] are working continuously for a period of 90 days, the same cannot be allowed to be frustrated by the management by taking the plea of applicability of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi (3) (supra).

13. Further, in Uma Devi (3) (supra), the question of consideration of regularization has been directed to be made only on the condition that the appointment must be made against the sanctioned post but herein, even though there were vacancies, the workman has been appointed as casual Hindi Typist, meaning thereby, the appointment of the workman cannot be construed not against the sanctioned post.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi (3) (supra) has laid down the law to regularize the services of such casual workers who have been found to be continuously working for a period of 10 years without any aid of interim order passed by the Court of Law and if appointment on sanctioned post, according to our considered view, the workman is fulfilling the criteria since is working from 1991 although for intervening period he was terminated but subsequently was reinstated in service however as casual Hindi Typist, but, if the management itself has taken a decision to regularize the services of such employees who have worked continuously for 90 days on or before 02.05.1986, the management cannot now be allowed to turn around and make objection with respect to regularization of their services.

15. The Tribunal has considered the decision of the management of regularizing such casual workers who have worked continuously for 90 days on or before 02.05.1986 and once they have taken such decision, the regularization cannot be allowed to be questioned by them. [14]

16. This Court, on the basis of the discussion made in the preceding paragraphs, is of the considered view that in the given facts of the case, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi (3) (supra) will not be applicable.

17. So far as the second contention, that the workman do not possess requisite qualification, is concerned, we are not in interest with such argument since as per Ext. M-5 the eligibility criteria to hold the post of Hindi Typist was only application of Hindi Typist on 23.02.1995 and educational qualification of matric or equivalent with 30 words per minute in Hindi Typing and once the criteria has been fixed for a person to hold the post of Hindi Typist, contrary to the same, no plea can be allowed to be agitated by the writ petitioner-management by referring to the higher eligibility criteria. Thus, the aforesaid argument is having no force, accordingly, rejected.

18. This Court is also required to refer about the scope of judicial review to make interference with the award by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Syed Yakoob vs. Radhakrishnan, A.I.R. 1964 SC 477. Paragraph no.7 of the said judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow: “The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 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 is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. 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 [15] 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 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 (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, 1955-1 SCR 1104 : ((S) AIR 1955 SC 233); Nagendra Nath v. Commr. Of Hills Division, 1958 SCR 1240 : (AIR 1958 SC 398) and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1960 SC 1168. In Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque and Ors., AIR 1955 Supreme Court 233, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as hereunder in paragraph no.21: “With regard to the character and scope of the writ of certiorari and the conditions under which it can be issued, the following propositions may be taken as established: (1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Writ of certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The Court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the Court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal even if they be erroneous. This is on the principle that a Court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right, and when the Legislature does not choose to confer a right of appeal against that decision, it would be defeating its purpose and policy, if a superior Court were to rehear the case on the evidence and substitute its own findings in certiorari.” In Sawarn Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (1976) 2 SCC 868 their Lordships, while discussing the power of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of [16] certiorari, has been pleased to hold at paragraph nos.12 and 13 as hereunder: “12. Before dealing with the contentions canvassed, it will be useful to notice the general principles indicating the limits of the jurisdiction of the certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. A writ of certiorari can be issued only in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction. The Court exercising special jurisdiction under Article 226 is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. As was pointed out by this Court in Syed Yakoob's case (supra)

13. 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.” In Heinz India (P) Ltd. and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors., (2012) 5 SCC 443 their Lordships have been pleased to hold at paragraph nos.66 and 67 as hereunder: “66. That the court dealing with the exercise of power of judicial review does not substitute its judgment for that of the legislature or executive or their agents as to matters within the province of either, and that the court does not supplant “the feel of the expert” by its own review, is also fairly well settled by the decisions of this Court. In all such cases judicial examination is confined to finding out whether the findings of fact have a reasonable basis on evidence and whether such findings are consistent with the laws of the land.

67. In Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra this Court held that decision of a tribunal on a question of fact which it has jurisdiction to determine is not liable to be questioned in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution unless it is shown to be totally unsupported by any evidence. To the same effect is the view taken by this Court in Thansingh Nathmal case where this Court held that the High Court does not generally determine questions which require an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce for which the writ is claimed.” In Thansingh vs. Supdt. of Taxes, A.I.R. 1964 1419 Supreme Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the High Court does not jointly determine question which requires elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce for which the writ is claimed. [17] In Pepsico India Holding (P) Ltd. vs. Krishna Kant Pandey, (2015) 4 SCC 270 their Lordships, while discussing the scope of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the matter of interference into the finding of the Tribunal, has been pleased to hold by placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs. Ashalata S. Guram, (1986) 4 SCC 447 at para-17 as hereinbelow: “17. In case of finding of facts, the court should not interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Reference may be made to the observations of this Court in Bathutmal Raichand Oswal V. Laxmibai R. Tarta where this Court observed that the High Court could not in the guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal. The High Court was not competent to correct errors of facts by examining the evidence and reappreciating. Speaking for the Court, Bhagwati, J, as the learned Chief Justice then was, observed at page 1301 of the report as follows: The special civil application preferred by the appellant was admittedly an application under Article 227 and it is, therefore, material only to consider the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the High Court under that article. Did the High Court have jurisdiction in an application under Article 227 to disturb the findings of fact reached by the District Court? It is well settled by the decision of this Court in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath that the …...... power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in Dalmia Jain Airways v. Sukumar Mukherjee to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. This statement of law was quoted with approval in the subsequent decision of this Court in Nagendra Nath Bose V. Commr. Of Hills Division and it was pointed out by Sinha, J., as he then was, speaking on behalf of the court in that case: It is thus, clear that the powers of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution with orders of judicial or quasi-judicial nature, are not greater than the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under Article 226 the power of interference may extent to quashing an impugned order on the ground of mistake apparent on the face of the record. But under Article 227 of the Constitution, the power of interference is limited to seeking that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority.” In General Manager, Electrical Rengali Hydro Electric Project, Orissa and Others vs. Giridhari Sahu and Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 695 has delved upon the issue about scope of issuance of writ of [18] certiorari by the High Court and has laid down that, if the finding recorded by the court is erroneous and based upon perversity, the order is fit to be quashed/set aside.

19. It is, therefore, evident from the settled position of law in the matter of issuance of writ of certiorari, the perversity of finding is to be looked into by the High Court while exercising the power as conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and relying upon the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred hereinabove, so far as it relates to power of issuance of writ of certiorari to interfere with the award, according to our considered view, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be improper taking into consideration the fact that no perversity could be shown by the management FCI about the finding recorded by the Tribunal and as such, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has committed no error.

20. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed.

21. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saurabh/ A.F.R.