Pramod Kumar vs M/S General Export Agencies & Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 1993 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                      LPA 213/2009 & C.M. No.6764/2009


                  Pramod Kumar                          ..... Appellant
                           Through: Mr. Lalit Kumar Laarn, Advocate

                       versus


                  M/s General Export Agencies & Ors.   ...... Respondents
                            Through: None

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
                      ORDER

% 12.05.2009

1. The present appeal is directed against order of the learned

Single Judge dated 26.03.2009. The case of the appellant (original

petitioner in the writ petition) was that the appellant was an

employee of the respondent company who had put in more than 20

years of service with the respondent company. However, he was

compelled to tender his resignation without giving him his due

payments. It was alleged that the forcible resignation of the workman

was illegal. Since the management failed to appear before the

Conciliation Officer, a reference was sent to the Labour Court. It was

the contention of the appellant before the Labour Court that his

resignation letter and settlement was manipulated by the respondent

company. The counsel for the respondent company submitted before

the learned Single Judge that all issues raised by the appellant had

been gone into by the Labour Court which had finally held the

reference in favour of the management and against the workman.

According to him, the settlement was agreed between the parties in

the presence of the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the same

was duly signed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner verifying the

fact of settlement. It was rightly held by the learned Single Judge

that it was not the case of the appellant that he had never signed the

resignation letter or the settlement agreement. The case sought to be

urged was that the said signatures were misused by the respondent

management to their advantage with a view to fabricate the

resignation letter and the settlement agreement. This was not

accepted by the Tribunal as nowhere in the statement of claim the

appellant had alleged that such signatures were obtained by the

management on blank paper. The learned Single Judge, thus,

correctly held that the Tribunal had considered the matter in detail

and it was the final arbiter on the finding of facts and unless there

was a perversity or irrationality in such findings the Court would not

re-appreciate the facts or the evidence led by the parties before the

Tribunal. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on the decision of

the Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank vs. I.O.B. Staff

Canteen Workers' Union (2000) 4 SCC 245.

2. It is settled law that while exercising the power of judicial

review the Court is more concerned with the decision making process

rather than the merit of the decision itself. Interference with the

decision of any authority like the Tribunal in this case which is the

final arbiter on the findings of fact is only permitted while exercising

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, if such authority

has held proceedings in violation of principles of natural justice or if

the decision of the authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous

to the evidence and merits of the case, or if the conclusion made by

the authority, on the very face of it, is wholly arbitrary or capricious

that no reasonable person would have arrived at such a conclusion,

or grounds very similar to the above. It cannot be overlooked that

such an authority like the Tribunal is the sole judge of the facts if the

proceedings of the inquiry have been properly conducted. As held by

the Supreme Court of India in High Court of Judicature of Bombay

vs. Sashikant S. Patil & Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 416, the settled legal

position is that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings

can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not

a matter for canvassing before the High Court in a writ petition filed

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. In view of what is stated hereinabove, we find no infirmity in

the order of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has

rightly held that it did not find that the Labour Court had committed

any illegality in passing the award or that there was any perversity or

irrationality in the award passed. The appeal is, accordingly,

dismissed. Pending application stands disposed of as well.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.

MAY 12, 2009 RS