Page 1

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -1-   

NON-REPORTABLE     

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4370 OF 2015 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 29960 of 2014)

RAJ KUMAR DIXIT                           …APPELLANT

    Vs.

M/S.VIJAY KUMAR GAURI SHANKER,  KANPUR NAGAR                             …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.     Leave granted.

2.  This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  impugned final judgment and order dated 02.07.2014 passed by

the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in Writ

Petition No.19573 of 2010, whereby the High Court

quashed the judgment and order of the Labour Court,

Page 2

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -2-   Kanpur,  in  Adjudication  Case  No.66  of  2009  dated

03.07.2009, wherein the Labour Court directed the

reinstatement of the appellant-workman in his post

along with 50% back wages. The High Court modified

the Award by granting compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to

be paid to the appellant-workman in place of the

Award passed by the Labour Court.

3.   The  factual  matrix  and  the  rival  legal

contentions  urged  on  behalf  of  the  parties  are

briefly stated hereunder with a view to find out

whether the impugned judgment and order of the High

Court  warrants  interference  by  this  Court  in

exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and for what

relief the appellant is entitled to?

4.   M/s.Vijay  Kumar  Gauri  Shanker,  the respondent-firm  herein,  was  carrying  on  the

business of transporting caustic soda from M/s.Modi

Alkalies  and  Chemicals  Ltd.  in  Alwar,  Rajasthan.

For the said purpose, the respondent-firm was in

possession  of  seven  tankers  which  were  used  for

Page 3

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -3-   

transporting caustic soda from Alwar to the place

of supply.     

5.    It is the case of the appellant that he was

working  as  an  accounts  clerk  in  the

respondent-establishment from the year 1994 and was

looking  after  all  the  factories  of  the

respondent-establishment. Apart from that he was in

charge of maintenance of all the seven tankers in the respondent-establishment and was also looking

after the transport office and court work of the

respondent-employer and in return he was being paid

Rs.1,800/- per month along with bonus as was being

paid  to  other  workmen  of  the

respondent-establishment.

6.   On 11.6.2001, when the appellant who had fallen sick  approached  the  respondent-firm  for  his

outstanding salary, the respondent-firm terminated

him from his services.  However, the workmen who

were  junior  to  him  were  still  working  in  the

respondent-establishment.  The  appellant-workman

Page 4

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -4-   

requested for reinstatement of his services in his post but the respondent-establishment refused the

same which action amounts to retrenchment as they

have  done  so  without  following  the  mandatory

conditions  as  provided  under  Section  6N  of  the

Uttar  Pradesh  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947

(hereinafter, “the Act”). Aggrieved by the order of

termination,  the  appellant  raised  an  industrial

dispute before the Labour Court, Kanpur narrating

all the relevant facts and grounds in support of

his claim.  

7.         The Labour Court on the basis of the pleadings

of the parties and in accordance with the claim and

written  statements  of  the  appellant  and  the

respondent and on re-appreciation of the evidence

on  record  adjudicated  the  existing  industrial

dispute  between  the  parties  and  recorded  its

finding on the points of dispute referred to it in

favour of the appellant which are extracted in the

narration of the facts and based on the evidence

Page 5

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -5-   

and  circumstances  of  the  case,  it  held  that  the

appellant  was  under  the  employment  of  the

respondent-firm  and  terminating  him  from  his

services by the respondent-firm is in contravention

to  the  provisions  of  Section  6N  and  other

provisions  of  the  Act  which  is  improper  and

illegal.  The  Labour  Court  directed  the

respondent-firm to reinstate him in the said post

and  pay  him  50%  back  wages  from  the  date  of

termination till the date of passing of the Award.  

8.    The  correctness  of  the  said  Award  was

challenged  by  the  respondent-establishment  before

the  High  Court  by  filing  writ  petition  urging

various legal grounds. The High Court, based on the

findings  and  reasons  recorded  on  the  points  of

dispute,  held  that  the  termination  order  passed

against  the  appellant-workman  is  not  legal.  The

High Court in exercise of its judicial review power

under  Article  227  of  the  Constitution  of  India

modified  the  Award  passed  by  the  Labour  Court,

Page 6

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -6-   

holding  that  the  workman  has  neither  stated

anything with regard to his gainful employment nor

any  averments  were  made  by  him  in  this  regard

during  the  aforesaid  period.  Therefore,  awarding

50%  back  wages  in  favour  of  the  workman  by  the

Labour  Court  in  its  Award  is  held  to  be  not

justified and the High Court modified the Award by

awarding  Rs.2  lakhs compensation  in  lieu  of reinstatement with 50% back wages as awarded by the

Labour Court.

9.   The appellant-workman aggrieved by the judgment

and order of the High Court has filed this appeal

by special leave, urging various legal grounds in

support of his claim and prayed this Court to set

aside the impugned judgment and order of the High

Court and restore the Award and further direct the

respondent to reinstate him in his post and pay him

full back wages from the date of the Award passed

by the Labour Court.

Page 7

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -7-   

10. It has been contended by the learned counsel

on  behalf  of  the  appellant-workman  that  the

services  of  the  workman  have  been  terminated

without complying with the mandatory provisions of

Section  6N  of  the  Act.  His  juniors  are  still

continuing  in  the  employment  of  the

respondent-establishment  while  his  services  were

arbitrarily terminated which is contrary to the law

laid down by this Court in a catena of cases. The

learned  counsel  has  further  contended  that  the

respondent-firm  has  erroneously claimed  that  the appellant-workman is not an employee of the firm as

he was carrying out the work of advocacy in the

courts on its behalf whenever the tankers of the

respondent-firm met with an accident. It has been

further contended by him that the maintenance of

the tankers was done by the appellant-workman in

the capacity of the employee of the respondent-firm

as  the  said  work  could  be  carried  out  by  an

employee of the respondent-firm only. It has been

further contended by the learned counsel on behalf

Page 8

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -8-   

of the appellant-workman that the High Court has

erred  in  its  decision  in  holding  that  the

reinstatement  of  the  appellant-workman  was

unjustified  since  the  respondent-firm  has  closed

down its business. The High Court has further erred

in its decision in holding that the Labour Court

was  not  justified  in  passing  an  Award  of

reinstatement of the workman in his post with 50%

back  wages  as  the  Labour  Court  in  another  case

involving the driver working at the establishment

of  the  respondent-firm  has  not  ordered  his

reinstatement which fact of the case could not have

applied to the fact situation of the present case

as  only  the transport  business  of  the respondent-firm  has  closed  down  and  its  other

businesses  are  still  continuing  and  the

appellant-workman was working in the capacity of an

accounts  clerk  of  the  respondent-firm  which  does

not disqualify him from reinstatement in his post.

Page 9

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -9-   

11. On the other hand, it has been contended by

the  learned  counsel  on  behalf  of  the

respondent-firm that the appellant-workman has not

placed  any  evidence  on  record,  either  oral  or

documentary to the effect that he was an accounts

clerk employed in the respondent-firm and as such

there is no master-servant relationship between him

and the respondent-firm. Hence, the provisions of

Section 6N of the Act are not applicable to the

fact  situation  of  the  present  case.  It  has  been

further submitted by him that the management of the

respondent-firm gave special power of Attorney to

the  appellant-workman  for  the  purpose  of  getting

the tankers released from the custody of the police

or the court and he has worked in that capacity

only  and  nothing  more.  For  the  said  work  the

respondent-firm used to give him fee for all the

necessary expenses that he would incur with regard

to  the  release  of  the  tankers  of  the

respondent-firm from the custody of the police or

the court.

Page 10

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -10-   

12. It has been further contended by the learned

counsel that since M/s. Modi Alkalies and Chemicals

Ltd. has been closed down in the year 2000 and the

work  of  transporting  caustic  soda  from  the  said

factory  was  completely  stopped,  therefore,  the

tankers of the respondent-firm were sold off and

all the licenses of the tankers were surrendered to

the respective authority. Hence, the Labour Court

has  erred  in  directing  the  respondent-firm  to

reinstate the workman with 50% back wages and the

same has been rightly quashed by the High Court and

modified the Award by awarding Rs.2 lakhs towards

compensation  in  lieu  of  reinstatement  and  back

wages awarded by the Labour Court.

13. We  have  heard  both  the  learned  counsel  on

behalf  of  the  parties.  On  the  basis  of  the

aforesaid rival legal contentions urged on behalf

of  the  parties  and  on  perusal  of  the  findings

recorded by the Labour Court in its Award, we have

to answer the points of dispute on the basis of

Page 11

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -11-   

evidence  produced  on  record.  We  are  of  the  view

that the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is

erroneous  in  law  in  holding  that  the  appellant

workman  was  not  in  employment  under  the

respondent-firm and it has erroneously quashed the

Award  of  reinstatement  of  the  appellant-workman

passed  by  the  Labour  Court  along  with  50%  back

wages.  In  support  of  the  above  said  conclusion

arrived at by us, we record our reasons hereunder:-

   It is an admitted fact that the respondent-firm

used  to  authorise  the  appellant-workman  on  its

behalf to do the work of releasing of the tankers

of the respondent-firm from the custody of police

or  the  court  whenever  the  tankers  met  with  an

accident  and  a  special  power  of  Attorney  was

executed by the respondent-firm in this regard to

the appellant-workman. Further, the respondent-firm

also  used  to  give  him  advance  amount  for  the

expenses that he would incur for carrying out the

said  work.  The  appellant-workman  was  also  given

Page 12

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -12-   

bonus every year and the same has been recorded in

the cash-book of the respondent-firm. The fact that

the  respondent-firm  is  still  continuing  with  its

business of trading betel nut and the new plea that

the transport business of the respondent-firm has

been shut down has also been considered by us. The

question that arises for our consideration in this

case,  keeping  in  view  the  relevant  facts,

circumstances and the evidence on record is that

whether  the  appellant-workman  was  gainfully

employed  in  the  capacity  of  the  clerk  in  the

establishment of the respondent firm or not. The

same  is  answered  by  the  Labour  Court  in  the

positive, on the basis of the evidence on record in

favour  of  the  appellant  for  the  reason  that  one

would not simply authorize a person who is not even

an employee of its establishment for carrying on

with the work of getting the tankers released from

the custody of the police or the court. Further,

the bonus received by the workman is only given in

the  case  where  he  would  be  employed  in  the

Page 13

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -13-   

establishment  of  the  respondent-firm.  Thus,  the

contention of the learned counsel on behalf of the

respondent-firm that the appellant-workman is not

the employee of the respondent-firm and there is no

master-servant  relationship  between  them,  was

rightly rejected by the Labour Court by recording

its reasons and holding that the concerned workman

was  employed  in  the  establishment  of  the

respondent-firm.  Further,  the  payment  of  labour

charges for the repair of the tankers was given to

the  workman  through  bill  or  voucher  separately,

instead  of  it  being  mentioned  directly  in  the

invoices  of  the  repair  of  the  tankers,  which

evidence  was  produced  by  him  before  the  Labour

Court, the same is rightly accepted by it on proper

appreciation  in  exercise  of  its  original

jurisdiction.  

14. Further, various records such as court orders

or  the  report  given  at  the  police  station  were

placed  on  record  before  the  Labour  Court  which

Page 14

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -14-   

would  clearly  show  that  the  appellant-workman

worked  in  the  capacity  of  Munim/Clerk/Manager  in

the establishment of the respondent-firm. Even the

power of Attorney executed by the respondent-firm

clearly  states  that  the  appellant-workman  was

authorised to carry out whatever action necessary

in connection with the release of the tankers of

the respondent-firm either from the police custody

or  the  court.  Thus,  it  is  clear  from  the  above

evidence produced on record by the appellant before

the Labour Court that he has worked in the capacity

of not only a mechanic in the establishment of the

respondent-firm but also as an accounts clerk. The

witnesses  on  behalf  of  the  respondent-firm  had

further deposed before the Labour Court that the

appellant-workman used to carry out the repair work

of the tankers of the respondent-establishment on a

regular basis and the said work was done by the

appellant-workman only.  Therefore, in the light of

the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  and  the

evidence admitted on record before the Labour Court

Page 15

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -15-   

and produced before this Court, it is amply clear

that  the  appellant-workman  was  employed  in  the

establishment of the respondent-firm and he used to

carry out the business of the respondent-firm in

the capacity of an employee/clerk and not just a

third  party  agent  or  a  mechanic.  Therefore,  the

High Court has gravely erred in quashing the Award

of reinstatement of the appellant-workman with 50%

back  wages  in  the  establishment  of  the

respondent-firm by awarding a compensation of Rs.2

Lakhs in lieu of the same which modification of the

Award of the Labour Court is not only erroneous but

also suffers from error in law and therefore, the

same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

15. Awarding compensation to an amount of Rs. 2

lakhs to the workman by the High Court in lieu of

reinstatement of the appellant-workman along with

50% back wages is once again contrary to the well

settled principles of law as has been laid down by

this Court in a catena of cases, particularly, the

Page 16

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -16-   

case  of  Punjab  Land  Development  and  Reclamation

Corporation.  Ltd.  v. Presiding  Officer,  Labour

Court,1 wherein the Constitution Bench held that the order of termination simpliciter has to be held bad

in  law  for  non-compliance  of  the  mandatory

requirements  provided  under  the  Act  and  further

held that the order of termination will be rendered

void-ab-initio in law and therefore, the workman is

entitled for all benefits for which he is legally

entitled to in law.

16. The  High  Court  has  exceeded  in  its

jurisdiction in setting aside the Award passed by

the Labour Court in awarding reinstatement of the

appellant-workman in his post along with 50% back

wages which is erroneous in law as the High Court

has  not  noticed  the  fact  that  the  appropriate

Government has referred the dispute to the Labour

Court for its adjudication on the points of dispute

1

(1990) 3 SCC  682

Page 17

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -17-   

referred to it. Since, there was non-compliance of

the  mandatory  requirements  as  provided  under  the

provisions of the Act by the respondent-firm at the

time of passing an order of termination against the

appellant-workman,  therefore,  the  same  has  been

held to be bad in law and as such it should have

awarded  full  back  wages  to  the  workman  from  the

date of termination till the date of passing the

Award unless the employer proves that the workman

was gainfully employed during the aforesaid period

which fact is neither pleaded nor proved before the

Labour Court.

17. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the High

Court  is  bad in  law  as  the  normal  rule  to  be

followed by the respondent-firm with regard to the

termination of the services of the workman has not

been done in the present case and further, the High

Court has once again exceeded in its supervisory

jurisdiction  in  exercise  of  its  judicial  review

power  under  Article  227  of  the  Constitution  of

Page 18

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -18-   

India by setting aside the Award of reinstatement

with 50% back wages passed by the Labour Court and

has instead awarded Rs.2 lakhs as compensation to

the appellant-workman which is contrary to the law

laid  down  by  this  Court.  The  High  Court  cannot

exercise  its  supervisory  jurisdiction  and  act  as

either  original  court  or  appellate  court  to  set

aside the finding of fact recorded on the points of

dispute  referred  to  the  Labour  Court  on  proper

appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record in

favour  of  the  workman  as  has  been  done  in  the

instant  case.  The  Award  of  compensation  of  Rs.2

Lakhs awarded in place of reinstatement with 50%

back wages as awarded by the Labour Court has been

modified by the High Court without assigning any

cogent and valid reason which is not only erroneous

in law but suffers from error in law as well, as

the same is contrary to the catena of decisions of

this  Court.  On  this  ground  itself,  the  impugned

judgment  of  the  High  Court  is  liable  to  be  set

aside and we pass an order to restore the Award

Page 19

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -19-   

passed  by  the  Labour  Court.  Reliance  has  been

placed  in  the  case  of  Syed  Yakoob  v.  K.S.

Radhakrishan2 which has been elaborately considered

by this Court in the case of  Harjinder Singh v.

Punjab State Warehousing Corporation3, the relevant

para of which reads thus:

“12. In Syed Yakoob case, this Court delineated the  scope  of  the  writ  of  certiorari  in  the following words:  

“7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is  no  longer  in  doubt.  A  writ  of certiorari  can  be  issued  for  correcting errors  of  jurisdiction  committed  by inferior  courts  or  tribunals:  these  are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the court or tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as  for  instance,  it  decides  a  question without giving an opportunity to be heard to  the  party  affected  by  the  order,  or where  the  procedure  adopted  in  dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt  that  the  jurisdiction  to  issue  a

2 (1964)  AIR SC 477 3 (2010) 3  SCC 192

Page 20

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -20-   

writ  of  certiorari  is  a  supervisory jurisdiction and the court exercising it is  not  entitled  to  act  as  an  appellate court.  This  limitation  necessarily  means that  findings  of  fact  reached  by  the inferior  court  or  tribunal  as  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. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the  said  finding,  the  tribunal  had erroneously  refused  to  admit  admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted  inadmissible  evidence  which  has influenced  the  impugned  finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear  in  mind  that  a  finding  of  fact recorded  by  the  tribunal  cannot  be challenged  in  proceedings  for  a  writ  of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal, and the said points  cannot  be  agitated  before  a  writ court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under  Article  226  to  issue  a  writ  of certiorari  can  be  legitimately  exercised

Page 21

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -21-   

(vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, Nagendra  Nath  Bora v.  Commr.  of  Hills Division and  Kaushalya Devi v.  Bachittar Singh). 8. It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately describe what an error of law apparent on the face of the record means. What can be corrected by a writ has to be an error of law; but it must be such an error  of  law  as  can  be  regarded  as  one which  is  apparent  on  the  face  of  the record. Where it is manifest or clear that the  conclusion  of  law  recorded  by  an inferior court or tribunal is based on an obvious misinterpretation of the relevant statutory  provision,  or  sometimes  in ignorance  of  it,  or  may  be,  even  in disregard of it, or is expressly founded on  reasons  which  are  wrong  in  law,  the said conclusion can be corrected by a writ of  certiorari.  In  all  these  cases,  the impugned conclusion should be so plainly inconsistent  with  the  relevant  statutory provision  that  no  difficulty  is experienced by the High Court in holding that the said error of law is apparent on the  face  of  the  record.  It  may  also  be that in some cases, the impugned error of law may not be obvious or patent on the face of the record as such and the court may need an argument to discover the said error; but there can be no doubt that what can be corrected by a writ of certiorari is  an  error  of  law  and  the  said  error must, on the whole, be of such a character as would satisfy the test that it is an error of law apparent on the face of the record.  If  a  statutory  provision  is reasonably  capable  of  two  constructions and one construction has been adopted by

Page 22

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -22-   

the  inferior  court  or  tribunal,  its conclusion may not necessarily or always be  open  to  correction  by  a  writ  of certiorari. In our opinion, it is neither possible nor desirable to attempt either to  define  or  to  describe  adequately  all cases of errors which can be appropriately described as errors of law apparent on the face  of  the  record.  Whether  or  not  an impugned error is an error of law and an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record, must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and upon  the  nature  and  scope  of  the  legal provision  which  is  alleged  to  have  been misconstrued or contravened.””

18. The findings and reasons recorded by the High

Court in its judgment and setting aside the award

of the Labour Court is contrary to the decision of

this Court. Further, in the case of  Deepali Gundu

Surwase  v.  Kranti  Junior  Adhyapak  Mahavidyalaya4,

this  Court,  after  adverting  to  the  three  Judge

Bench  judgment  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of

Surendra  Kumar  Verma v. Central  Govt.  Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court5, has categorically held

that the termination order passed by the employer

is the subject matter of dispute either before the 4 (2013) 10 SCC 324 5 (1980) 4 SCC 443

Page 23

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -23-   

Tribunal or before the Labour Court and it is for

the employer to show that the workman was gainfully

employed from the date of the termination till the

date of passing of the Award so as to deny him back

wages  and  this  Court  further  held  that  if  the

termination  order  is  set  aside,  the  award  of

reinstatement is the normal rule and awarding of

the back wages must follow, the same need not be

awarded if the workman is either gainfully employed

during  the  period  of  adjudication  or  if  the

employer is facing any financial crunch. The said

decision  of  this  Court  in  the  Deepali  Gundu

Surwase’s case reads thus: “24. Another three-Judge Bench considered the same  issue  in  Surendra  Kumar  Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and observed:  

“6. …  Plain  common  sense  dictates that  the  removal  of  an  order terminating  the  services  of  workmen must  ordinarily  lead  to  the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been, and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may be  exceptional  circumstances  which make  it  impossible  or  wholly inequitable  vis-à-vis  the  employer and  workmen  to  direct  reinstatement

Page 24

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -24-   

with full back wages. For instance, the industry might have closed down or  might  be  in  severe  financial doldrums; the workmen concerned might have  secured  better  or  other employment  elsewhere  and  so  on.  In such situations, there is a vestige of discretion left in the court to make  appropriate  consequential orders. The court may deny the relief of reinstatement where reinstatement is  impossible  because  the  industry has closed down. The court may deny the  relief  of  award  of  full  back wages  where  that  would  place  an impossible burden on the employer. In such and other exceptional cases the court  may  mould  the  relief,  but, ordinarily the relief to be awarded must be reinstatement with full back wages.  That  relief  must  be  awarded where  no  special  impediment  in  the way of awarding the relief is clearly shown. True, occasional hardship may be caused to an employer but we must remember that, more often than not, comparatively far greater hardship is certain to be caused to the workmen if the relief is denied than to the employer if the relief is granted.”

19. The  contention  urged  on  behalf  of  the

respondent-firm that the Award of compensation of

Rs.2  Lakhs  in  lieu  of  the  reinstatement  and  50%

back wages by the High Court is on account of the

alleged closure of the respondent establishment is

Page 25

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -25-   

neither supported by any pleading nor any evidence

has been adduced before the Labour Court or this

Court  in  that  regard  by  the

respondent-establishment.  If  any  additional

material  is  produced  before  the  High  Court,  the

same would be impermissible in law for the reason

that the respondent-employer was required to plead

with regard to the alleged closure and substantial

evidence must be produced in support of the same

before the Labour Court at the first instance, and

no such plea has been taken before the Labour Court

by  them.  In  absence  of  such  a  plea,  producing

additional  documents  by  the

respondent-establishment before the High Court is

totally impermissible in law for the reason that

the  High  Court’s  jurisdiction  is  to  examine  the

correctness of the Award passed by the Labour Court

in  exercise  of  its  judicial  review  power  under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is

very  limited.  In  the  present  case,  even  if  we

consider the facts, there is no additional material

Page 26

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -26-   

evidence produced on record before the High Court

and it has no jurisdiction to receive the same and

render its findings. Apart from the said reason no

other reason has been assigned by the High Court in

its  judgment  and  order  for  modifying  the  Award

passed by the Labour Court. Therefore, the legal

contention urged in this regard on behalf of the

respondent-establishment  is  misconceived  and  the

same is liable to be rejected.  

20. The  High  Court  has  erred  in  its  decision,

both on facts and in law in setting aside the order

of  reinstatement  with  50%  back  wages  to  the

workman. It is the workman who was aggrieved with

regard to the non-awarding of 50% back wages and

this aspect of the matter has not been considered

by the High Court while interfering with the Award

of the Labour Court and awarding compensation in

lieu  of  the  reinstatement  and  back  wages.

Therefore, the appeal must succeed in this case.

The  High  Court  in  awarding  compensation  to  the

Page 27

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -27-   

workman  has  erroneously  held  that  the  order  of

reinstatement  passed  in  favour  of  the

appellant-workman is illegal and void ab initio in

law without assigning valid and cogent reasons and

therefore, the same is liable to be set aside as

there  has  been  a  miscarriage  of  justice.  The

grounds  urged  by  the  appellant  in  this  case  are

well founded and we accordingly pass the following

order:

I. The  Appeal  is  allowed.  The  impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court

of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition

No.  19573  of  2010  dated  02.07.2014  is

hereby set aside and the Award passed by

the Labour Court in awarding reinstatement

with  50%  back  wages  from  the  date  of

termination  till  the  date  of  passing  the

Award by the Labour Court is restored.

Page 28

C.A.@ SLP (C) No.29960 of 2014                               -28-   

II. We  further  direct  the  respondent-firm  to

pay full back wages to the workman from the

date of passing of the Award by the Labour

Court till the date of his reinstatement in

service. The order shall be complied with

by  the  respondent-firm  within  six  weeks

from the date of receipt of copy of this

order.                                                ……………………………………………………………………………………J.               [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA]

            ……………………………………………………………………………………J.               [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

New Delhi,   May 12, 2015