Single-judge High Court dismissed writ petition challenging Labour Court order reinstating workman. Court held appreciation of evidence not subject to review unless finding unsupported by evidence.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/2
Chittewan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO.3909 OF 1999
M/s. New Era Fabrics Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus Shri Kiran L. Savani … Respondent
Ms. Aparna Devkar i/b M/s M.P. Vashi & Associates for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent.
CORAM : S.C.GUPTE, J.
DATE : 4 AUGUST 2016.
P.C. :
2 This Petition challenges an order passed by the Labour Court in a complaint of unfair labour practice at the instance of the Respondent. The order has been confirmed in revision by the Labour Court by its order dated 17 September 1998. By the impugned orders, the Respondent-workman has been reinstated with 75% back wages from 18 October 1988 with continuity of service. The grounds of challenge in the Petition indicate that the grievance of the Petitioner is about appreciation of evidence by the Courts below. Appreciation of evidence per se cannot be the subject matter of judicial review under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. It is only when the conclusion drawn by the Courts below is not supported by any evidence or that the Court has considered any irrelevant matter or disregarded any relevant matter, that the Writ Court can interfere with the
2/2
Chittewan
findings of the Courts below. There is no such case made out in the present Petition. The findings of the Courts below are clearly sustainable by evidence on record.
(S.C.GUPTE, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Labour Court's appreciation of evidence under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution.
Whether the impugned order reinstating the petitioner's workman with back wages is sustainable.
M/s. New Era Fabrics Ltd.
Shri Kiran L. Savani
S.C.Gupte
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
