Managing Director G M V N Ltd. another v. Presiding Officer Labour Court Dehradun another

Judgment

1. This is em ployer ’s pet it ion under Art icle 227 of t he Const it ut ion challenging t he award dat ed 17.02.2022 rendered learned Labour Court , Dehradun Adj udicat ion Case No. 24 of 2012. By t he said award, t erm inat ion of ser vice of respondent no. 2 was declar ed t o be unj ust and illegal and it was provided t hat t he workm an shall be ent it led t o reinst at em ent w it h cont inuit y of service and back wages at t he rat e of 5 per cent of his m ont hly salary from t he dat e of raising t he disput e t ill t he dat e of his reinst at em ent .

2. Lear ned counsel for t he pet it ioners subm it s t hat respondent no. 2 was appoint ed as Product ion Superv isor in Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam , t herefore, learned Labour Court had no j urisdict ion t o ent ert ain and decide t he disput e raised by respondent no. 2, w ho was not a workm an. I t is fur t her cont ended t hat t he work and conduct of respondent no. 2 was far from sat isfact ory and due t o 1 t he m isconduct com m it t ed by him , dom est ic enquir y was init iat ed against him by issuing a charge sheet ; since he did not part icipat e in t he enquiry, t her efore, aft er issuing show cause not ice on 08.04.1999, his services were t er m inat ed vide order dat ed 01.07.1999. Thus, she subm it s t hat int erference m ade by lear ned Labour Court in t he m at t er is unwar rant ed in t he fact s and cir cum st ances of t he case.

Per cont ra, Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for r espondent no. 2 subm it s t hat alt hough t he designat ion given t o pet it ioner was Supervisor, how ever, he had no supervisor y pow er s and he was sim ply discharging clerical funct ions, such as, m aking challan, m aint aining recor d of t he product ion in t he fact ory, pr eparing challan for t ransport ing t he goods out of t he fact ory, et c. He furt her subm it s t hat char ge sheet was not served upon respondent no. 2 nor his reply was ever sought regarding t he charges, and t he show cause not ice was also not served upon him . He furt her subm it s t hat one Sri Raj esh Nait hani appears t o have been appoint ed as enquiry officer, but no int im at ion regarding t he enquiry was sent t o respondent no. 2, t her efore, he was not aware about pendency of any enquiry and t he enquiry, if any, was held in absolut e violat ion of principles of nat ural j ust ice and his ser vices wer e t erm inat ed, wit hout issuing show cause not ice, on

01.07.1999.

4. Based on t he pleadings m ade by t he part ies, t he following t hree point s for det erm inat ion wer e form ulat ed by learned Labour Court : - ( i) Whet her t he dom est ic t he OP inquiry proceedings w ere t he in accor dance wit h conduct ed by Principles of Nat ural Just ice? I f no, t hen effect ? ( ii) Whet her t he t er m inat ion of serv ice of work m an Chint am ani Shar m a by t he Ops w.e.f. 01.07.1999 is proper and/ or legal? I f no, t hen effect ? 2 ( iii) The workm an is ent it led t o what benefit / r elief ?

5. Respondent no. 2 appeared as wit ness and filed his affidavit . One Sri K.N. Naut iyal, Assist ant General Manager, Tourism , GMVN was exam ined as em ployer wit ness.

6. On t he first issue, learned Labour Court held t hat dom est ic enquiry was held in violat ion of principles of nat ural j ust ice and respondent no. 2 was not given reasonable opport unit y t o defend him self. I ssue nos. 2 & 3 wer e also decided in favour of respondent no. 2 by holding t hat as t he dom est ic enquiry was held wit hout grant ing opport unit y t o defend him self t o respondent no. 2, t her efore, t he t er m inat ion order passed, on t he st r engt h of such dom est ic enquiry, is not sust ainable in t he eyes of law.

7. Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, lear ned counsel respondent no. 2 has drawn at t ent ion of t his Court t o t he aver m ent m ade in para 1 of t he writ t en st at em ent filed by his client before learned Labour Court , wher e it is st at ed t hat even t hough designat ion given t o respondent no. 2 was Supervisor, but he dischar ged dut ies of a Clerk e.g., m aint aining recor d of t he product ion m ade in t he fact ory, preparing challan for t ransport ing t he goods out of t he fact ory et c. He furt her subm it s t hat em ployer, in para 1 of his writ t en st at em ent , adm it t ed t his st at em ent m ade by respondent no. 2 in para 1 of his w rit t en st at em ent . Thus, he subm it s t hat pet it ioner cannot be perm it t ed t o raise t he cont ent ion regar ding st at us of r espondent no. 2, at t his belat ed st age.

8. Sect ion 2( z) of t he U.P. I ndust rial Disput es Act , 1947 defines “ Wor km an” as follows: - 3 ( including apprent ice) “ ‘Workm an' m eans any person em ployed in any indust ry t o do any skilled or unskilled m anual, supervisor y, t echnical or clerical work for hire or reward, whet her t he t erm s of em ploym ent be express or im plied, and for t he purposes of any proceeding under t his Act in relat ion t o an indust rial disput e, includes any such person who has been dism issed, discharged or ret renched in connect ion w it h, or as a consequence of, t hat disput e, or whose dism issal, discharge or ret renchm ent has led t o t hat disput e, but does not include any such person – ( i) who is subj ect t o any Arm y Act , 1950 or t he Air Force Act , 1950, or t he Navy ( Discipline) Act , 1934; or ( ii) who is em ployed in t he police service or as an officer or ot her em ployee of a prison; or ( iii) who is em ployed m ainly in a m anagerial or adm inist rat ive capacit y; or( iv) who being em ployed in a supervisory capacit y, draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per m ensem or exercises, eit her by t he nat ure of t he dut ies at t ached t o t he office or by reason of t he powers vest ed in him , funct ions m ainly of a m anagerial nat ure.”

9. From t he aforesaid definit ion of ‘Workm an’, it is revealed t hat a per son em ployed in any indust ry t o do skilled or unskilled m anual, supervisory, t echnical or clerical work is a Workm an. However, such per son ar e not included in t he definit ion of workm an; ( i) w ho are subj ect t o Arm y Act , Air Force Act or Navy ( Discipline) Act ; ( ii) w ho is em ployed in t he police service or as an officer/ em ployee of a prison; ( iii) who is em ployed m ainly in m anagerial or adm inist rat ive capacit y; and ( iv) who being em ployed in supervisory capacit y draw s wages exceeding five hundr ed rupees per m ont h or exer cise funct ions m ainly of a m anagerial nat ur e. 10 I n det er m ining t he quest ion whet her an em ployee is a w orkm an under Sect ion 2( z) of t he U.P. I ndust rial Disput es Act or not , t he Court has t o see t he principal dut y/ r esponsibilit y of an em ployee and neit her his designat ion is decisive nor any incident al work t hat he m ay be r equired t o do shall get him out side t he purview of 4 workm an. Anyone whose principal j ob and nat ure of em ploy m ent is m anual, t echnical or clerical would be a workm an. Alt hough t he designat ion given t o respondent no. 2 is t hat of a Supervisor, how ever, a Supervisor is one aut horit y ot hers; som eone who superint endent s and dir ect s ot hers. Thus, an em ployee, who in t he int er est of em ployer, is r esponsible t o cont rol t he work done by ot her workers and if t he work is not done correct ly t o guide t hem t o do it correct ly, as per norm s, shall cert ainly be a Supervisor.

11. Pet it ioner has not m ade any aver m ent in his writ t en st at em ent filed before lear ned Labour Court t o show t hat dut y of r espondent no. 2 was t o supervise t he w ork of ot her worker s. Respondent No. 2 had no disciplinar y cont rol over ot her em ployees and as per his unr ebut t ed st at em ent , he was dischar ging dut ies of a Cler k .

12. I n t he pr esent case, respondent no. 2 m ade a cat egorical st at em ent in his writ t en st at em ent t hat he was em ployed t o do clerical work t he fact ory and t his st at em ent was adm it t ed by t he em ployer in his w rit t en st at em ent . Adm ission t he best evidence, t herefore, learned Labour Court was not expect ed t o delve int o t his aspect any furt her. Em ployer did not lead any evidence regarding dut ies and funct ion of respondent no. 2 t o prove t hat he was not a work m an. Mor eover, em ployer did not raise any cont ent ion befor e lear ned Labour Court on t he quest ion of it s j urisdict ion t o ent ert ain t he disput e, t her efore, t he em ployer cannot be per m it t ed t o raise t he issue of st at us of r espondent no. 2, in t hese proceedings.

13. Lear ned counsel t he pet it ioner t hen subm it t ed t hat respondent no. 2 was get t ing wages exceeding ₹500/- per m ont h, t herefore, he cannot be 5 t reat ed as workm an in view of provision cont ained in Clause ( iv) of Sect ion 2( 2) of I ndust rial Disput es Act .

14. The said subm ission looks at t ract ive in t he fir st blush, but on a deeper scr ut iny, t he said cont ent ion cannot be count enanced. The wage lim it of Rs. 500/ - was fixed in Sect ion 2( s) ( iv) several decades ago, w hen m oney had m ore purchasing power. Wit h t he passage of t im e, t he said wage lim it has becom e ot iose and a person serving in t he lowest r ung of em ploym ent in any est ablishm ent t oday is get t ing m any t im es m ore wages t han w hat is specified in Sect ion 2( s) ( iv) of U.P. I ndust rial Disput es Act . I ndust rial Disput es Act is a beneficial legislat ion, t her efore, it r equires a liberal int erpr et at ion.

15. Lear ned Labour Court consider ed and discussed all relevant aspect s and held t hat t he dom est ic enquiry, which culm inat ed in passing of t erm inat ion order against respondent no. 2, was held in violat ion of principles of nat ural j ust ice and furt her t hat respondent no. 2 was denied reasonable opport unit y t o defend him self. The finding r et ur ned by lear ned Labour Court is a finding of fact , which cannot be int erfered wit h in a pet it ion under Art icle 227 of t he Const it ut ion.

16. Law is w ell set t led t hat w hile exercising supervisory j urisdict ion under Art icle 227 t he Const it ut ion, t his Court does not sit as a court of appeal. Hon’ble Supr em e Court in t he case of Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan & ot hers report ed in 1964 AI R 477 has held as under: - “ 7. The quest ion about t he lim it s of t he j urisdict ion of High Court s in issuing a writ of cert iorari under Art icle 226 has been frequent ly considered by t his Court and t he t rue legal posit ion in t hat behalf is no longer in doubt . A writ of cert iorari can be issued for correct ing errors of j urisdict ion com m it t ed by inferior court s or t ribunals: t hese are cases where orders are 6 passed by inferior court s or t ribunals w it hout j urisdict ion, or is in excess of it , or as a result of failure t o exercise j urisdict ion. A writ can sim ilarly be issued where in exercise of j urisdict ion conferred on it , t he Court or Tribunal act s illegally or properly, it decides a quest ion wit hout giving an as for inst ance, opport unit y, be heard t o t he part y affect ed by t he order, or where t he procedure adopt ed in dealing wit h t he disput e is opposed t o principles of nat ural j ust ice. There is, however, no doubt t hat t he j urisdict ion t o issue a writ of cert iorari is a supervisory j urisdict ion and t he Court exercising it is not lim it at ion t o act as an appellat e Court . This ent it led necessarily m eans t hat findings of fact reached by t he inferior Court or Tribunal as result of t he appreciat ion of evidence cannot be reopened or quest ioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on t he face of t he record can be correct ed by a writ , but not an error of fact , however grave it m ay appear t o be. I n regard t o a finding of fact recorded by t he Tribunal, a writ of cert iorari can be issued if it is shown t hat in recording t he said finding, t he Tribunal had erroneously refused t o adm it adm issible and m at erial evidence, or had erroneously adm it t ed inadm issible evidence which has influenced t he im pugned finding. Sim ilarly, if a finding of fact is based on no ev idence, t hat would be regarded as an error of law which can be correct ed by a writ of cert iorari. I n dealing wit h t his cat egory of cases, however, we m ust always bear in m ind t hat a finding of fact recorded by t he Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of cert iorari on t he ground t hat t he relevant and m at erial evidence adduced before t he t he Tribunal was im pugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and t he inference of fact t o be drawn from t he said finding are wit hin t he exclusive j urisdict ion of t he Tribunal, and t he said point s cannot be agit at ed before a writ Court . I t is wit hin t hese lim it s t hat t he j ur isdict ion conferred on t he High Court s under Art icle 226 t o issue a writ of cert iorari can be legit im at ely exercised ( vide Hari Vishnu Kam at h v. Syed I shaque [ ( 1955) 1 SCR 1104] Nagandra Nat h Ahm ad Bora v. Com m issioner Appeals Assam [ ( 1958) SCR 1240] and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachit t ar Singh [ AI R 1960 SC 1168] ” of Hills Division insufficient or t o sust ain inadequat e

17. Sim ilar view was t aken by Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of Sadhana Lodh v . Nat ional I nsurance Co. Lt d., r eport ed in ( 2003) 3 SCC 524. Para 7 of t he said j udgm ent is ext ract ed below: - “ 7 . The supervisory j ur isdict ion conferred on t he High Court s under Art icle 227 of t he Const it ut ion is confined only t o see whet her an inferior court or t ribunal has proceeded wit hin it s param et er s and not t o correct an error apparent on t he face of t he record, m uch less of an error of law. I n exercising t he supervisory power under Art icle 227 of t he Const it ut ion, t he High Court does not act as an appellat e 7 court or t he t ribunal. I t is also not perm issible t o a High Court on a pet it ion filed under Art icle 227 of t he Const it ut ion t o review or reweigh t he evidence upon which t he inferior court or t ribunal purport s t o have passed t he order or t o correct errors of law in t he decision.”

18. Since learned Tribunal has ret urned findings of fact , w hich cannot be int erfered wit h w hile exercising power of superint endence under Art icle 227 of t he Const it ut ion. Thus, any int erfer ence wit h t he im pugned awar d would not be warrant ed. The writ pet it ion fails and is dism issed. ________________________ M A N OJ K UM A R TI W A RI , J.

26.06.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08 b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DAC F4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL 8