SHANTI RANJAN BORAL Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application Under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India for insurance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quasinsing certain finding only reached by opposite party 1, presiding officer, labour court, Ranchi, while disposing of an application filed by opposite party 2, namely, the management of Minimax Ltd., Kokar, Ranhi under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes, 1947, for approval of the management's action dismissing a number of workmen from their services on different date beginning from 19 February to 6 March 1964. On the assumption that the workmen against whom orders of dismissed had been passed were concerned in the dispute which was pending adjudication before the labour court, Ranchi, by virtue of a notification dated 22 January 1964 of the Government of Bihar in their Department of Labour and Employment, the managements filed an application on 26 February 1964, under the aforesaid proviso of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for approval of their action. There ware certain defects in the application, as originally filed, but they were rectified and the application for approval was refiled on 24 April 1964. By order, dated 21 October 1865, opposite party 1 refused to accord permission and dismissed the application died by the management. Against that order, management moved this Court under Articles 228 and 227 of the Constitution, and the same was registered as Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1138 of 1965 and was admitted for hearing. During the pandency of the said writ application filed on behalf of the management, directed against the order the labour court dismissing their application for approval of the action against the workmen, the present application was filed by the petitioners, who are five in numbae-- four being individual workmen and the fifth being the Minimax Workmen's Union. It may be mentioned that after or some amount of argument in civil Writ Jurisdiction case No. 1138 of 1965, learned counsel appearing for the management-petitioner in that case, prayed to withdraw the said writ application and his prayer was allowed, with the result that the order, dated 31 October 1965, rejecting the management's application under the proviso to Section 33(2)(ft) of the Industrial Disputes Act stands.

(2.) This application was also Hated along with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1188 of 1965, Even after the said case. namely, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11S8 of 1966, was withdrawn, this application war, however, pressed.

(3.) It is not necessary to go into the merits of the objections to the findings claimed to be adverse to the petitioner, because in my opinion, this application must fail on the simple ground that an application for a writ in the nature of certiorai runs against final and conclusive judgments and not against mere findings. It may be that certain findings reached, whether incidentally or necessary, are erroneous in one or another respect, but a writ will not He to review a decision on that ground. The order dated 21 October 1965, passed by the labour court refusing to accord approval to the action of the management is dismissing the workmen is in favour of the workman and, accordingly, I am of the opinion that no writ can lie against mere findings when the final order is in favour of the party applying for the writ. Quite clearly, the final order being in favour of the workman, any adverse findings incorporated in the said final order cannot operate as res judicita in any proceeding, whether taken at the instance of the petitioners or by others against them. I am, therefore, of the opinion that on this preliminary ground, it mast be hold that this application is not maintainable at all. It, therefore, fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of this case, however, there will be no order as to coat. R.L. Narasimhan, C.J.