Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Asha Ram And Anr.
2005 Latest Caselaw 44 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Rule. The writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. The writ petition challenges the award dated 12th September, 2001. The only issue which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, reads as under:-

"Whether Shri Aasa Ram entitled to be promoted as Assistant Director and if so from what date and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

3. The Tribunal framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the cause of the workman has been legally espoused by the union? (OPW)

2. Whether Shri Asha Ram is a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of I.D. Act? (OPD)

3. Whether Shri Asha Ram fulfills the qualifications as required in recruitment rules for the post of Asstt. Director of Horticulture? (OPW).

4. As per the terms of reference."

4. Since no evidence was produced by the petitioner MCD in support of its stand in spite of repeated opportunities on 7.5.2001 the petitioner's evidence was closed. By its unrebutted evidence led on 22.11.1993, the respondent had established that he had passed High School and secured a 2 year diploma in Horticulture. On the first issue no document was produced nor any suggestion given to the petitioner on behalf of the management hence this issue was decided in favor of the respondent. In respect of the issue No. 2, it has been held that it was not the case of the management that the respondent was employed in a supervisory capacity and accordingly this issue was also decided against the management. In respect of issue No. 3, the workman averred that he has passed his High School and completed two years diploma in Horticulture. No rules and regulations were shown by the petitioner to the contrary to demonstrate that the workman was not entitled to the post of Assistant Director of Horticulture for the lack of requisite qualification nor was any evidence to that effect led by the petitioner. Accordingly, this issue was also decided rightly in favor of the workman by the Industrial Tribunal and he was found to have the requisite qualifications for the post of Asstt. Director of Horticulture as nothing was extracted from him during his cross-examination or otherwise that the workman was not entitled to the post of Assistant Director of Horticulture.

5. Once the Tribunal found that no recruitment rules were placed on record by the petitioner before the Tribunal to substantiate its plea that the respondent was not qualified to hold the post of Assistant Director Horticulture, the substratum of the case set up by the petitioner disappeared and accordingly the findings recorded by the Tribunal become immune from challenge. Furthermore, the impact of the award is limited due to the respondent No. 1's death on 9.7.94 only to monetary claims payable to his widow, from the date of juniors of the respondent No. 1 were promoted, till the date of respondent No. 1's death.

6. The position of law in respect of interference by Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is well settled in view of the following:-

(a) The Supreme Court in para 5 in Sadhu Ram v. Delhi Transport Corporation, AIR 1984 SC 1967 observed :

" ..... nor we think that it was right for the High Court to interfere with the Award of the Labour Court under Article 226 on a mere technically. Article 226 is a device to secure and advance justice and not otherwise. In the result, we allow the appeal, set-aside the the judgment of the High Court and restore the Award of the Presiding Officer."

(b) The Supreme Court in Harbans Lal v. Jag Mohan, :

" .......The limitations on the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are well settled. The Writ Petition before the High Court prayed for a Writ in the nature of certiorari, and it is well known that a Writ in the nature of certiorari may be issued only if the order of the inferior tribunal of subordinate court suffers from an error of jurisdiction, or from a breach of the principles of natural justice or is vitiated by a manifest or apparent error of law. There is no sanction enabling the High Court to reappraise the evidence without sufficient reason in law and reach finding of fact contrary to those rendered by an inferior court or subordinate court. When a High Court proceeds to do so, it acts plainly in excess of its power."

(c) The Supreme Court in Calcutta Port Shramik Union v. Calcutta River Transport Association and Ors., 1988 (Supp.) SCC 768 in para 10 observed :

".........The object of enacting the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and of making provision therein to refer disputes to Tribunals for settlement is to bring about industrial peace. Whenever a reference is made by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal, it has to be presumed ordinarily that there is a genuine industrial dispute between the parties which requires to be resolved by adjudication. In all such cases, an attempt should be made by Courts exercising powers of judicial review to sustain as far as possible the Awards made by the Industrial Tribunal instead of picking holes here and there in the Awards on rival points and ultimately frustrating the entire adjudication process before the Tribunals by striking down the Awards in hyper technical grounds. Unfortunately, the orders of the Single Judge and of the Division Bench have resulted in such frustration and have made the Award fruitless on an untenable basis."

(d) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhoo v. M/s Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works and Ors. 1990 Lab. I.C. 1538 in para 8 ruled :

"8. We have gone through the statements of two witnesses produced by the appellant before the authority. The findings of the authority are based on appreciation of evidence produced by the parties before the authority. We do not agree with the High Court that the finding recorded by authority are based on no evidence. The High Court should not have interfered with the findings of the fact reached by the prescribed authority on appreciation of evidence."

Thus in accordance with the above position of law no interference in findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal is called for. In any event, the petitioner having died and the monetary benefits accruing under the award as per the above claim being confined limited up to the date of the death and payable to his widow, no interference is called for even otherwise under Article 226 of the Constitution.

7. In the meanwhile, during the pendency of the dispute before the Tribunal, the workman also died on 9.7.94 and his widow Ms. Pushpa Sharma was substituted in his place on 23.2.99. Since the award was stayed by this Court since July, 2002 up to date and in the meanwhile prior to the interim order of this Court, the respondent had moved the application under Section 33(C)(1) for recovery of the awarded amount and the application is still pending and was not given effect due to the interim orders of this Court, it is directed that the application preferred by the respondent No. 1's legal heir, Smt. Pushpa Sharma under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act shall be disposed of on or before 1st April, 2005. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid directions.