(1.) The present appeal is directed against order of the learned single Judge dated March 26, 2009. The case of the appellant (original petitioner in the writ petition) was that the appellant was an employee of the respondent company who had put in more than 20 years of service with the respondent company. However, he was compelled to tender his resignation without giving him his due payments. It was alleged that the forcible resignation of the workman was illegal. Since the management failed to appear before the Conciliation Officer, a reference was sent to the Labour Court. It was the contention of the appellant before the Labour Court that his resignation letter and settlement was manipulated by the respondent company. The counsel for the respondent company submitted before the learned single Judge that all issues raised by the appellant had been gone into by the Labour Court which had finally held the reference in favour of the management and against the workman. According to him, the settlement was agreed between the parties in the presence of the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the same was duly signed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner verifying the fact of settlement. It was rightly held by the learned single Judge that it was not the case of the appellant that he had never signed the resignation letter or the settlement agreement. The case sought to be urged was that the said signatures were misused by the respondent management to their advantage with a view to fabricate the resignation letter and the settlement agreement. This was not accepted by the Tribunal as nowhere in the statement of claim the appellant had alleged that such signatures were obtained by the management on blank paper. The learned single Judge, thus, correctly held that the Tribunal had considered the matter in detail and it was the final arbiter on the finding of facts and unless there was a perversity or irrationality in such findings the Court would not re-appreciate the facts or the evidence led by the parties before the Tribunal. The learned single Judge placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank v. I. O.B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union AIR 2000 SC 1508 : (2000) 4 SCC 245 : 2000-I-LLJ-1618.
(2.) It is settled law that while exercising the power of judicial review the Court is more concerned with the decision making process rather than the merit of the decision itself. Interference with the decision of any authority like the Tribunal in this case which is the final arbiter on the findings of fact is only permitted while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, if such authority has held proceedings in violation of principles of natural justice or if the decision of the authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or if the conclusion made by the authority, on the very face of it, is wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person would have arrived at such a conclusion, or grounds very similar to the above. It cannot be overlooked that such an authority like the Tribunal is the sole judge of the facts if the proceedings of the inquiry have been properly conducted. As held by the Supreme Court of India in High Court of Judicature of Bombay v. Sashikant S. Patil and Another AIR 2000 SC 22 : (2000) 1 SCC 416, the settled legal position is that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) In view of what is stated hereinabove, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has rightly held that it did not find that the Labour Court had committed any illegality in passing the award or that there was any perversity or irrationality in the award passed. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application stands disposed of as well.