BLOCK DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT OFFICER, UT, CHANDIGARH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, UT, CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Labour Court, UT Chandigarh has answered Reference No.78 of 1991 in favour of the workman by assigning reasons on the moot point as follows:-

(2.) The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, UT Chandigarh has considered the evidence, weighed it, appreciated it and has taken the view as above. The reasoning cannot be faulted as there is no valid ground found to upset the same. If discretion has been exercised judiciously and judicially in reinstating the workman to service and granting full back-wages to him after holding that the termination order was illegal, then it cannot be said that the view is perverse, irrational or a flawed one or that no reasonable person would have taken the view. It is argued that reinstatement is not automatic which is also true. But the principle has to be applied by the Labour Court judiciously keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case on the evidence since it the repository of authority and this Court does not review judicially the work of Labour Court as though it were sitting in appeal against the award of the Labour Court to substitute its opinion to that of the Labour Court. The restrictions placed in exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India has been explained by the Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, 1964 AIR(SC) 477 and Article 227 in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, 2003 6 SCC 675.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on B.S.N.L. vs. Bhurumal, 2014 7 SCC 177 to submit that the award deserves to be interfered with. I am afraid, that is not the ratio in Bhurumal, supra. No absolute rule can be laid down in labour law as each case depends on its own facts and one fact here or there can make a vital difference and change the course of relief. On the other hand, the exposition of law in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd., 1979 2 SCC 80 as applied in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court starting from Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, 2010 3 SCC 192, Anoop Sharma vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana), 2010 5 SCC 497, and Devinder Singh vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, 2011 6 SCC 584, Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others, 2013 10 SCC 324, Jasmer Singh vs. State of Haryana and Another, 2015 4 SCC 458 and Tapash Kumar Paul v. B.S.N.L. & Another, 2015 AIR(SC) 357 are cases in point which are in favour of the respondent.