Writ petition challenging the Labour Court's dismissal of a termination claim in an industrial dispute. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the award that the employee voluntarily left the employment.
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 / 5
2024:CGHC:29644
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 1034 of 2015
... Petitioner
versus
1. Willman Paper Mart, Proprietor Shri Harish Nachrani S/o. Late Shri Deepchand Nachrani R/o. Banjari Road, P. S. Gole Bazar, Raipur, Dist.Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Labour Court No. 2, Through Presiding Officer, Anand Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Order On Board
07/08/2024
1. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of the award dated 30.05.2015 passed by the Labour Court No.2, Raipur (C.G) in Case No.15/I.D.Act/2012/Reference, whereby, the claim of the respondent/employee was dismissed.
2 / 5
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged on the post of Manager in the year 1990 and his services was terminated by way of an Oral Order on 25.11.2006 by respondent No.1 without issuing any legal notice or payment of any retrenchment compensation. Therefore, an industrial dispute was raised and the reference was made on 28.09.2007. Thereafter, when the conciliation proceeding was not materialized, the Assistant Labour Commissioner filed a report before the Labour Court. The petitioner himself adduced evidence but the respondent/employee did not adduce any evidence. After evaluating the evidence available on record, the claim of the employee/petitioner was dismissed. Hence, this Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned award is bad in law. He submits that the respondent/employer has not discharged the burden by proving that the petitioner/employee has abandoned the job, as the burden to establish the said fact was on it. He would submit that the concerned Court exceeded its jurisdiction and further, since no issue has been framed with regard to the fact that the employee voluntarily abandoned the job, the only question that remains for determination is as to whether the termination of the employee was legal or justifiable or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that only on scrutiny of the statement of the employee, the trial Court has wrongly dismissed the claim, therefore, he prays to allow the petition and set-aside the impugned award.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent No.1/employer would support the impugned order.
3 / 5
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully.
6. It is well established principle that burden of proof of existence of a particular fact lies on a person, who makes a positive averment about its existence. It is also well established proposition that the interpretation and construction of the Labour Laws should make an effort to protect the rights of the weaker sections of the society. The law is also well settled about the scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court cannot exercise its power as an Appellate Court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the Subordinate Court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record.
7. In the matter of Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel (2022) 4 SCC 181, at para 15 and 16 the following observations was made:-
“15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like
4 / 5
when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.
16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.(2001) 8 SCC 97 has observed:- (SCC pp.101-102, para 6)
“6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.”
8. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, indisputably, the petitioner/employee was engaged on the post of Manager in the year
5 / 5
9. In the reply filed by the employer before the Labour Court, a specific averment has been made that the employee himself has stopped coming at work and he voluntarily, left the employment w.e.f. October, 2006. In para 3 of the reply, it has been further asserted that after leaving the job, he joined another concern. In para 6 of the statement given by the employee, he voluntarily stated that after leaving the job, he joined the Popular Bread Factory.
10. Taking into consideration the said evidence, the trial Court has arrived at a finding that the employee voluntarily left the job and he was never terminated from the service as there is no evidence of such fact. The impugned award has been passed on proper appreciation of the evidence produced before the Labour Court.
11. For the foregoing, this Court does not find any manifest perversity or illegality or irregularity in the impugned award, which does not warrant any interference by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction.
12. Resultantly, the Writ Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge
Priyanka
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere under Article 227 with the Labour Court's finding that the employee voluntarily left the job.
Whether the impugned award dismissing the retrenchment claim suffers from any manifest perversity or illegality.
Whether the evidence available was sufficient to justify the trial court's conclusion that there was no termination by the employer.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand GoelExplained¶24
(2022) 4 SCC 181 · Who else cites this
Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.Explained¶28
(2001) 8 SCC 97 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manoj Kumar Tahalramani
Willman Paper Mart
Labour Court No. 2
Deepak Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
