Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.@mdashChallenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated September 17, 1997 of the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge modified the award of the Labour Court dated September 21, 1988 directing that the workman (appellant herein) shall not be entitled to the back wages and if the management (respondent-company herein) recruits any casual worker, the appellant would be given the work.
Contextual facts depict that the appellant rendered his services as helper in the electrical maintenance department of respondent-company in the year 1975, 1976 and 1977 as per the Certificate dated October 21, 1978 (Annexure-2 in the writ petition). The appellant was not allowed to work on July 31, 1977 and his services were terminated orally without furnishing any notice or affording any opportunity of being heard. A settlement was arrived at between the management of the respondent-company and the Union of the workers on March 31, 1977 and May 10/1980 whereby it was settled that the casual labourers who had worked for more than one month, their services shall be regularised after interviewing them. Pursuant to the settlement, all the workmen except the appellant were called for interview and taken back on duty. Aggrieved by the oral termination, the appellant submitted application on December 8, 1981 before the Regional Assistant Labour Commissioner cum Conciliation Officer. The Conciliation Officer submitted failure report to the Government on April 13, 1983. On the basis of the failure report the Government of Rajasthan referred the matter to the Labour Court, Jaipur vide order dated November 3, 1983. The appellant filed claim petition and the respondent-company filed reply to the claim petition, Statements of witnesses were recorded. The Labour Court after hearing the submissions of both the parties held the termination illegal and ordered for reinstatement of the appellant with benefit of continuity in service. The appellant was also allowed back wages from December 18, 1981 onwards. The award of Labour Court dated September 21, 1988, was assailed by the respondent-company by filing the writ petition. While admitting the writ petition, learned Single Bench stayed the application of the award. The appellant moved application u/s 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act which was allowed vide order dated April 17, 1990 and the respondent-company was directed to pay full wages last drawn by the appellant including maintenance allowance from April 1, 1989, the date on which the writ petition was filed. Thereafter the learned Single Bench disposed of the writ petition as indicated herein above.
2. Having carefully scanned the impugned order of learned Single Bench we notice that it has modified the award of the learned Labour Court and after reweighing the evidence adduced before Labour Court. The relevant para of the impugned order of leaped Single Bench reads as under:
The finding which has been recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioner was a regular employee is perverse. Even on the basis of the certificate dated 21.10.1978 it is evident that he was only a casual helper. A person who; is attending the services casually could be directed to be reinstated in the same position in which he was before the retrenchment. I am not going on that point as to whether it was a voluntary abandonment by the workman or not taking the workman on service by the employer. The fact remains that the employee of the casual workman was stopped after the settlement with the union. The Labour Court in such a circumstances at most could have directed that he could be taken as a causal helper when there is a need by the employer. In the certificate dated 21.10.1978, it is mentioned that he was a casual helper at the rate of Rs. 5/- per day. Thereafter he is running a shop. The back wages from 17.9.1977 to 18.7.1987 have not been given, but he was directed to be taken as a helper from 19.12.1981.
3. We find the order of learned Single Bench contrary to observations of the Supreme Court made in
The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior Court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.
4. For these reasons, we allow the special appeal and set aside the impugned order. We uphold the award dated September 21, 1988 passed by Labour Court, Jaipur and direct the respondent-company to implement the award forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.
