JAI BHAGWAN Vs. ASSTT GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant claims to have been appointed and worked as a Messenger with State Bank of India, Kishan Garh Branch continuously from 8.9.1993 to 6.11.1995. Since the services of the appellant were terminated by the Management on 7.11.1995, an industrial dispute was raised by him. On the said dispute being referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, an order was passed on 10.4.2008 holding that since the appellant had not worked for 240 days in a year, the termination of his service was legal and justified. Being aggrieved from the rejection of his claim, the appellant filed W.P(C) No.6775/2008 challenging the decision of the Industrial Tribunal.

(2.) In Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, 1964 AIR(SC) 477, Supreme Court identified the limitations of Certiorari jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in the following terms:-

(3.) In the case before us, the Tribunal after considering the evidence produced by the parties, returned a finding of fact that the appellant had not worked with the respondent for at least 240 days in a year. It is not open to this Court to interfere with the findings of fact returned by the Tribunal unless it is shown that the finding is perverse being without any evidence or being a finding which no reasonable person could have returned on the basis of the material available to the Tribunal. This is also not the case of the appellant that the aforesaid finding of fact was recorded by the Tribunal without giving opportunity to him to lead evidence. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged on the ground that the evidence available before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain such a finding. Therefore, we find no good reason to interfere with the aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal which has also been accepted by the learned Single Judge.