Delhi High Court
Vijay Mohan Vijay vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court ... on 8 May, 2009
Author: V.K.Shali
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7703/2009
Date of Decision : 08.05.2009
Vijay Mohan Vijay ......Petitioner
Through : Nemo
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.XVIII
...... Respondents
Through : Nemo
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? NO
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. None for the petitioner despite second call.
2. The present writ petition is against the award dated
28.11.2008 passed by the Labour Court in ID No.842/06/01 in
case titled Vijay Mohan Vijay Vs. the Management of M/s.
Precision Pipe & Profiles Co. Ltd. by virtue of which the learned
Labour Court held that the petitioner was not able to prove that
he was a workman under the Section of 2(s) of the ID Act and
accordingly issues no.2 and 3 were not dealt with as they had
become redundant.
3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award and
challenged the same.
4. I have gone through the award of the writ petition.
5. Briefly stated that the facts of the case are that a reference
was made on 15.12.2000 in the following terms:
"Whether the services of Sh. Vijay Mohan Vijay
have been terminated illegally and/or
unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to
what relief is he entitled and what directions are
necessary in this respect?"
6. In pursuance to the aforesaid reference the notices were
issued by the Labour Court to the parties. The petitioner filed
this statement of hearing contending that he was employed by
the respondent/management w.e.f. 10.7.1981 and he was getting
a salary of Rs.9360/- p.m. apart from Rs.1540/- as house rent,
Rs.800/- as transport allowance and thus his total emoluments
were Rs.11,700/-. It is alleged by him that without any reason
for termination, he was charge sheeted and thereafter his
services were dispensed with on 09.05.2000 without complying
with the principles of natural justice.
7. The petitioner is purported to have sent a demand notice
dated 06.06.2000 and thereafter the proceedings before the
conciliation officer were initiated and since it did not yield any
fruitful result.
8. On the pleadings of the parties, the following three issues
were framed:-
(1) whether the claimant was not a workman within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act? OPM
(2) whether the claimant himself abandoned the job by
remaining absent w.e.f. 09.05.2000? OPM
(3) as per the terms of reference.
9. The parties adduced their respective evidence and after
this, the ld.Labour Court came to a finding that the claimant was
unable to prove that he was workman within the definition of
Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act. As against this, the
management witness Vijay Menon, MW-2 and other witness Y.K.
Sharma, MW-1 had entered into the witness box and justified
that the petitioner was an Administrative Officer and not a
workman. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, a finding was
handed over that the petitioner was not a workman as no proof
was given by him and the other issues were not dealt with. The
learned Labour Court has referred to various authorities while
dealing with the question of the status of the petitioner as to
whether he was a workman or not. The perusal of the award
shows that there is a proper compliance with the principles of
natural justice so far as the petitioner is concerned. The onus
essentially was on the workman namely the petitioner to
establish the workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the
I.D. Act which he has failed to discharge within a limit.
10. This Court in exercise of its power of judicial review cannot
sit as a Court of appeal and then come at a finding of its own and
substitute the same in place of finding of the Court below. In
Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra (1999) 1
SCC 759 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the scope of
judicial review in following words:
"Judicial review, not being an appeal from a
decision, but a review of the manner in which the
decision was arrived at, the court, while exercising
the power of judicial review, must remain conscious
of the fact that if the decision has been arrived at by
the administrative authority after following the
principles established by law and the rules of
natural justice and the individual has received a
fair treatment to meet the case against him, the
court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the
administrative authority on a matter which fell
squarely within the sphere of jurisdiction of that
authority."
11. In the light of the aforesaid legal position, this Court cannot
sit as Court of an appeal and re-appreciate the evidence. I do not
find any infirmity, perversity or violation of principles of natural
justice which may warrant any appearance with the award.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
MAY 08, 2009
gm
