EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. DILIPSINH C CHAVDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in the nutshell are that 18 workmen filed an application before the Labour Court, Godhra which was registered as Misc. Application No.30 of 1993 and was disposed of finally by award dated 15.01.1994 and a direction was issued against the present appellants to engage the respondent-workmen in accordance with seniority and not to disturb and defeat their legal rights to receive the benefits and not to adopt unfair labour practice with a further direction to implement Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 by extending benefits thereof to the workmen if in the facts and circumstances the workmen are entitled to the benefits under the said Govt. Resolution. The appellants being aggrieved by the said award filed Special Civil Application No.6106 of 1994. It was submitted before the learned Single Judge that such a direct application at the instance of the workmen was not maintainable before the Labour Court and the Labour Court was unjustified in assuming jurisdiction and making the award. It was also submitted that the Labour Court could assume jurisdiction only when a reference is made by the competent authority. The contention was opposed by the workmen, after hearing the parties the learned Single Judge observed that the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction was a just and proper submission. The objection was upheld, but the learned Single Judge proceeded to consider the alternative argument raised by the workmen that even if the Labour Court has no jurisdiction in the matter, but if it had made a just and proper order then the High Court can refuse to interfere in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Judge referring to a judgement of Delhi High Court observed that the award made by the learned Labour Court though was patently without jurisdiction but as the award is just and proper and does not create any additional rights in favour of the workmen the High Court is not required to interfere in the matter.

(2.) While holding that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction the learned Single Judge refused to interfere in the matter. Hence the appellants are before this Court under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants after taking us through the order passed by the learned Single Judge submitted that if there is inherent lack of jurisdiction in a Tribunal, Court or Authority and it makes an order, then the Court, especially High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot refuse to interfere in the matter. The submission is that there may be circumstances or special reasons for which the High Court may refuse to interfere in a given matter in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the present is not a case where inherent lack of jurisdiction could be ignored by the High Court simply on the ground that the order made by the Tribunal was just and proper.