KESHOD NAGAR PALIKA Vs. PANKAJGIRI JAVERGIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Learned counsel for the parties agree that although these petitions arise from separate awards, the factual contentions, pleadings and evidence are substantially common and the same can, therefore, be dealt with by common judgement and order. Accordingly these petitions are disposed of by common judgement.

(2.) These are petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India though styled as ones under Articles 14, 16, 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging therein the judgement and awards of the Labour Court wherein the References of the concerned workman have been allowed and the petitioner-employer has been directed to reinstate the concerned workman with full back-wages with continuity of service.

(3.) Before proceeding further on the merits of the matter it is desirable to keep in mind the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohmmad Yunus Vs. Mohammad Mustaqim (AIR 1984 SC 38) and Khali Ahmed Bashir Vs. Tufelhussein S. Sarangpurwala (AIR 1988 SC 184) , on the question of the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of this Court in the context of the powers which this Court may exercise under Art. 227 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has observed in the aforesaid two cases that the High Court, while examining a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-appreciate the evidence and cannot disturb the findings of fact recorded by the courts below except where the same are perverse, and even errors of law cannot be corrected.