FASHION EXIM INDIA PVT LTD Vs. CHINTAMANI AMBOLKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of an award of t he Labour Court dated 21st September, 2004 on a reference to adjudication. The Labour Court has held that the termination of the first respondent w.e.f. from 9th October, 1996 was illegal. Consequently, the petitioner has been directed to reinstate the first respondent with full back wages and continuity of service. The petitioner carries on the business of manufacturing ready -made garments for export. The first respondent in his statement of claim before the Labour Court claimed that lie had been working with the petitioner as a checker cum -supervisor since November 1992 and that his last drawn salary was Rs.

(2.) ,100/ - per month. In the statement of claim it was specifically averred that the employer has not issued any appointment or confirmation letter to any employee. It was stated further that the first respondent was a permanent employee; that he was carrying out the work of checking garments in accordance with the norms laid down by the Directors of the petitioner; that the company employed over 60 workers in various designations such as checkers, tailors, ironman, helper, sorter and supervisors. The first respondent then averred that he was signing the wage -attendance register; maintained by the petitioner and that the petitioner did not maintain any other record other than the attendance register in respect of employees employed in temporary and piece rated capacities. The case of the workman was that On 7th August, 1996 he was paid his salary and then orally directed not to report for work from the next day. Thereafter, when he reported for work on 8th and 9th October, 1996 he was not allowed to do so by Shri Kishor Kataruka, one of the Directors of the company who informed him that his services have been terminated with immediate effect. No letter of termination was issued and the case of the workman before the Labour Court was that he had been unlawfully terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. In the written statement, the case of the petitioner was one of complete denial. The petitioner averred that the respondent -workman was never in the employment of the company and that there existed no relationship of employer and employee at any point of time.

(3.) THE decision of the reference turns entirely on an appreciation of the evidence which was adduced on behalf of the parties before the Labour Court. In the circumstances, while assailing the award of the Labour Court the submission which has been urged on behalf of the petitioner is entirely devoted to the manner in which the Labour Court has appreciated the evidence. Before dealing with the submissions, it has become necessary to advert to this position, since the submissions in effect amount to a request to the Court to reappreciate the evidence. Now consistent with the limitations on the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, particularly when the Court is called upon to issue a writ of Certiorari, the Court must have due regard to the settled position in law. The jurisdiction in Certiorari is not in the nature of an appellate power which the Court wields and therefore, the Court would not substitute its own view on the appreciation of evidence for the view of the Labour Court, Undoubtedly, in an appropriate case even a finding of fact can be interfered with if it is based on no evidence or where, the appreciation of the evidence is perverse in the sense that material admissions in the evidence have been ignored or where the finding contains ex facie an error apparent on the face of the record which has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice.