Shri K.L. Gera vs Presiding Officer And Others
2001 Latest Caselaw 1224 Del

ORDER

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the ward passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi on 4th may, 1999, holding that the Management had not illegally and unjustifiably terminated the services of the workman. It was further held in the said award that at the time of retrenchment of his services, the retrenchment compensation and notice pay was duly paid to the workman and that there was no act of victimisation and unfair labour practices on the part of the Management.

2. A dispute having arisen between the petitioner/workman and the respondent/Management, reference for adjudication was made on the following terms:-

"whether the services of Sh. K.L.Gera have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is be entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect".

3. In his claim petition, the petitioner stated that he was working with the Management as Accounts Clerk since 22nd September, 1986 and that he was an active member of the Union on account of which he had to take leading part in the Union activities to secure the demands on behalf of the workers. It was stated that due to the aforesaid position the Management wanted to teach a lesson to the members of the Union and also to the petitioner for organising and taking a leading part in the Union activities and that the Management asked him to resign on 30th July, 1988 and on his refusal his services were terminated by letter dated 30th July, 1998. It is alleged that the said act of the Management amounted to unfair labour practice as the Management had retained junior persons to the workman namely Shri Subhash Chand Gupta while terminating the services of the workman.

4. The aforesaid claim petition was contested by the Management by filing a written statement wherein it was contended that the Management concerned was a Group Housing Society and was raising construction of the houses for the members of the Society and that the construction of the houses were completed and the houses were allotted to its members and therefore, the work had considerable reduced consequent to which some of the workmen had become surplus and, therefore, the services of the petitioner was retrenched after making payment of his dues in accordance with law.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the Labour Court. During the proceedings, the workman examined himself and the Management produced Shri Ram Gopal Podar as its witness. The Labour Court upon consideration of the evidence on record and after hearing the arguments came to the conclusion that the claim of the workman of his victimisation on account of his taking part in the Union activities has no merit and is bogus. In respect of the plea of the workman that the Management terminated his services while retaining the services of Shri Subhash Chand Gupta, his junior, the Labour Court on appreciation of evidence, found that although Shri Subhash Chand Gupta was junior to the workman, his duties were different than that of the petitioner and that while the Management required the services of Shri Subhash Chand Gupta, the Management did not require the services of the petitioner who was working as Accounts Clerk. Accordingly, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that on account of reduction of the work of the Society, the staff of the Management, including the workman, had become surplus and, therefore,the Management had retrenched the services of its surplus staff and that the workman has failed to prove on record any act of victimisation on the part of the Management.

6. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is error apparent on the face of the records as the Labour Court has wrongly recorded that the petitioner himself in his deposition had admitted that Shri Subhash Chand Gupta was working as a Cashier.It was submitted that the said part of the award is perverse and contrary to the records and, therefore, the findings and the conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court on the basis of such appreciation are required to be set aside and quashed.

7. Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, however submitted that the contention of the petitioner is incorrect which would be apparent on a bare reading of the evidence recorded by the Labour Court.

8. A writ court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not and should not venture to re-appreciate the evidence adduced by the parties before the Labour Court to arrive at a contrary finding. It is also not the function of the writ court to sit as an appellate court over the award passed by the Labour Court. It is settled law that jurisdiction of such a Court is circumscribed and restricted. This Court should interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court when there is manifest error of law apparent on the face of the records or when an award is perverse. It is also, settled position of law that a writ court would not lightly interfere with the findings and conclusions of fact arrived at by a Labour Court.

9. In the present case, the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that there is no victimisation of the workman on account of his taking part in some Union activities. It is conclusively held that the claim of the workman of his victimisation on account of his taking part in the Union activities has no merit and is bogus. The aforesaid conclusions could not be assailed by the petitioner by showing that there is any error apparent on the face of the records in coming to the aforesaid findings. The main thrust of the argument of the counsel appearing for the petitioner was that the services of the petitioner were terminated although his junior was retained in service and, therefore, 'last come first go' principle followed in the labour jurisprudence has been done away with by the Management. The findings and the conclusions of the Labour Court in that regard was that Shri Subhash Chand Gupta who is start to be junior to the petitioner was discharging different duties than the petitioner and that while the Management required the services of Shri Subhash Chand Gupta, it did not require the services of the petitioner who was working as an Accounts clerk.

10. Counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of his arguments had to admit that the petitioner himself had stated in his deposition that his duties were different than that of Shri Subhash Chand Gupta. The said statement of the petitioner appears at page 42 of the paper book. As Shri Subhash Chand Gupta was doing different duties than the petitioner and since his services were required by the Management, there was no bar no the part of the Management in retaining the services of said Shri Subhash Chand Gupta while terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that he had become surplus in view of reduction of work of the society.

11. It was clearly found by the Labour Court on appreciation of evidence that on account of reduction of work of the society, the staff of the Management including the petitioner had become surplus and, therefore, the Management had retrenched the services of the petitioner. The Labour Court also found that the workman had failed to prove on record any act of victimisation on the part of the Management. The said findings are findings of fact. None of the aforesaid findings could be shown to be perverse nor it could be shown that there is any error apparent on the face of the records. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Labour Court. The petition has no merit and is dismissed accordingly.