SELPRINT, BOMBAY Vs. M.M SANAP AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-employer seeks to quash and set aside the award, dated 29 Aug. 1987, passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Ninth Labour Court. Bombay, in Reference (I.D A ) No. 828 of 1977. By the impugned award the second respondent-Labour Judge had directed the petitioner to reinstate the first respondent-workman with full back-wages and continuity of service from 3 May 1977.

(2.) The first respondent-workman, though served by a substituted service, did not remain present in this Court. With the help of Sri Rele, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, I went through the impugned award. I find that the impugned award is totally perverse in the sense that the evidence on the record is not only misread but also misinterpreted and statements after statements in the award are inconsistent with one another. It is no use pointing out all those inconsistent and contradictory statements found in the award but suffice it to point out here a couple of instances. Thus the learned Labour Judge began his reasoning by stating that the report of the Conciliation Officer did not show that the petitioner had raised a dispute that the first respondent-workman was not in their employment at all. This statement in the award is contradictory in terms qua a document at exhibit B (page 17) by which communication the petitioner-employer had informed the Government Labour Officer that the workman in question was not working with them at all and a further request was made to send all the correspondence in the matter to the respective company. After stating in the award that the employer did not raise the dispute about the workman being not employed by them, in the same breath the learned Labour Judge records that he (the employer) did not take part in the further proceedings after 21 July 1977. In other words, the two sentences in the award are contradictory to one another. Then as it was the case of the employer that this particular workman was not in their employment the learned Labour Judge, with a view to destroy the case of the employer, observes in his award that the witness examined on behalf of the employer admitted that one Tukaram Sanap was working with them. It is important to note that the name of the concerned workman here is not Tukaram Sanap but M. M Sanap. These are only two illustrations to show as to how the award recorded by the learned Labour Judge is perverse. It may be added here that the evidence is not at all properly appreciated. That being so, the impugned award has got to be quashed and set aside and the matter has to be remanded back to the Labour Court for reappreciating the evidence on the record in its proper perspective after giving an opportunity to both sides of being heard. It would not be proper for this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to reapppreciate every piece of evidence as if this is an appellate Court. The only alternative, therefore, is to remand the matter back as stated here in above.

(3.) In this view of the matter, the impugned award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Ninth Labour Court, Bombay, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the said Court with a direction to reappreciate the entire evidence on record in its proper perspective after giving a reasonable opportunity to both the parties to be heard and make proper award. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs.