Provident fund authority challenged a Tribunal order remanding a Section 14-B damages matter for reassessment at 22%. The court held writ jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate, found no error of law apparent on the record, and dismissed the petition.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2474 of 2012
------
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II through Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhagirathi Complex, Lalpur, Ranchi
.... .... …. Petitioner
Versus
M/s Chotanagpur Graphite Industries through its Managing Director, 3P, Shree Gopal Complex, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, Ranchi .
.... .... .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
------
Order No.08 / Dated :18.03.2024
compensation which was not compensatory, but penal in nature.
Shankar Agarwal & Others , (1972) 4 SCC 257 at page 260
“Unless a High Court is of the opinion that the order assailed suffers from errors of law apparent on the face of the record it has no jurisdiction to quash that order by having recourse to its certiorari jurisdiction on the ground of error of law. The mere possibility of raising a question of law in a case is no ground for interfering with an order impugned.”
Sawarn Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Others , (1976) 2 SCC 868 at page 872
It will be useful to notice the general principles indicating the limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court in writ proceedings under Article 226. It is well settled that 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 case,
“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.”
Writ petition stands dismissed. Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Anit
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court in writ jurisdiction could interfere with the Tribunal's remand order for reassessment of damages at 22% under Section 14-B.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
(1998) 2 SCC 242Relied on
Bachan Singh & Others v. Gauri Shankar Agarwal & OthersRelied on
(1972) 4 SCC 257 · Who else cites this
Sawarn Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & OthersRelied on
(1976) 2 SCC 868 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II through Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhagirathi Complex, Lalpur, Ranchi
M/s Chotanagpur Graphite Industries through its Managing Director, 3P, Shree Gopal Complex, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, Ranchi
Gautam Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
