FUEL INJECTION LIMITED Vs. KAMGER SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is perhaps a golden rule in a judgment of affirmance in appeal to be very brief, particularly where no new points have been raised or deserves to be decided.

(2.) Counsel have argued at length these appeals which turn on an industrial dispute involving reinstatement of a large number of workmen on the score that according to the award of the Industrial court their dismissal was illegal. Although the labour court held that 110 workmen had been illegally dismissed, it granted relief in a limited compensatory way. Dis-satisfied with that award, the workers went up to the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In a very elaborate judgment the High Court awarded compensation under two heads:for the back wages, it awarded compensation on a classified scale categorising the workers into two groups. In regard to reinstatement the Court gave many reasons why reinstatement should not be allowed and justified the order of the labour court in this behalf. However, an additional sum by way of compensation was awarded in lieu of reinstatement. The total sum so awarded under both the heads is given in the judgment of the High Court.

(3.) But the Labour and Management have come up in appeal and thus we have two appeals to dispose of. C. A. No. 529 of 1976 is by the workers and C. A. No. 530 of 1976 is by the Management. We have heard counsel on the merits of the matter but are impressed with one submission made in limine by Shri Singhvi, appearing for the Management. He contended that this was not a case directly from the tribunal where this Court"s jurisdiction would have the amplitude of an appellate court and may go into the various facets of the award and its legality or otherwise. Maybe, even the merits of the matter could be investigated in that jurisdiction. But the present appeals are from a judgment of the High Court under Art. 226 and so the jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining an appeal by special leave under Art. 136 must ordinarily be confined to what the High Court could or would have done under Art. 226. This limitation must be borne in mind when we deal with the judgment under appeal. We think that in such a situation unless there is some plain error of law of a serious nature we should not lightly interfere. Nor should we, sitting in appeal, interfere with the exercise of discretion in moulding the relief. So viewed, we are satisfied that the judgment under appeal does not merit interference. We dismiss both the appeals.