PUNJAB STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL GURDASPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Arya on the merits of his client's case.

(2.) Without going into the correctness of the impugned award dated May 13, 2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Gurdaspur, this petition is dismissed since no question of law arises for consideration in judicial review against the award of the Tribunal and especially where the Tribunal has denied reinstatement and awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement for five years of daily wage service rendered with the Punjab State Forest Development Corporation at Amritsar.

(3.) Without commenting on the reasonableness or adequacy of the compensation package since the award has not been assailed by the workman as yet, then the issue of quantum is left open and the petition is dismissed as calling for no interference in jurisdiction provided by Article 226 of the Constitution of India while reviewing work of Tribunals which is non-appellate and non-plenary and the limited extent of interference is indicated in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, 1960 AIR(SC) 137 , by the Supreme Court in a case arising from the Bombay Revenue Tribunal. The Supreme Court applied its past dicta and relied on the observations of M.C. Chagla, CJ. in Batuk K. Vyas v. Surat Municipality, 1953 AIR(Bom) 133 delivered in the Bombay High Court, held as follows:-