Delhi High Court
Md. Kasim vs M/S Tara International on 13 October, 2022
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/004386
$~27 & 28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7238/2018
MD. AYUB ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K. B. Hina, Adv.
versus
M/S TARA INTERNATIONAL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Francis, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 7260/2018
MD. KASIM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K. B. Hina, Adv.
versus
M/S TARA INTERNATIONAL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Francis, Adv.
% Date of Decision: 13th October, 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. Present writ petitions have been filed challenging the order dated
17.03.2018, whereby, the learned Labour Court - V, Dwarka Courts, Delhi
has rejected the claim and decided the matter against the
petitioners/workmen predominantly on the ground that the
petitioners/workmen had failed to prove the relationship of employer-
employee between the parties.
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 7260/2018
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:20.10.2022
12:13:32
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/004386
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the report from the
Office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (South). Learned counsel for
the petitioners submits that as per the report, in pursuance to the complaint
made by the General Secretary, Delhi Hosiery Worker Union, the Labour
Inspector conducted an inspection in the premises of the management on
11.07.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the time of
the inspection, 35 workmen including the petitioners were found working in
the production wing of the management.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the learned
Trial Court has fallen into a grave error by ignoring this document and inter
alia reaching to the conclusion that the petitioners/workmen have failed to
prove the relationship of employer-employee between the parties. Learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that even in para 28 of the impugned
award, the learned Labour Court has fallen into a grave error by inter alia
observing that there is no explanation as to how the present workmen name
has appeared as being present in the premises as a worker on 11.07.2005
whereas, as per the claim, the workmen was terminated on 12.07.2005 and
the Labour Inspector visited the management premises only after
13.07.2005.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this observation of the
learned Labour Court is totally wrong and contrary to the material on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the report, the learned
Labour Inspector inspected the premises on 11.07.2005. It has been
submitted that in view of this error, the impugned order is liable to be set
aside.
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 7260/2018
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:20.10.2022
12:13:32
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/004386
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the learned
Labour Court has appreciated the entire material on record and on the basis
of the evidence led by the parties reached to the right conclusion that the
petitioners/workmen had failed to prove the relationship of employer-
employee between the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent has
submitted that there is no material on record to set aside the order of the
learned Labour Court.
6. It is settled proposition of law that this Court while exercising the writ
jurisdiction cannot sit as an Appellate Court over the award passed by the
learned Labour Court. The legislature has not provided any appeal to be
filed against the order passed by the learned Labour Court. Thus, the
learned Labour Court is the final arbiter of the facts. The award passed by
the learned Labour Court can be set aside only if there is perversity or
manifest illegality in the order of the learned Labour Court. This Court
cannot substitute its opinion with the opinion reached by the learned Labour
Court. Even this Court cannot go into the insufficiency of evidence. The
jurisdiction of the writ court has clearly been held in the judgment of this
Court in Parshuram Shah vs. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi : 2008 SCC Online
Del 1186, whereby, it has been held as under:-
"7. The arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner
workman, if entertained, would amount to interfering with the
findings of facts as arrived at by the Labour Court after due
appreciation of evidence. Law is well settled in this respect
that the Labour Court is the final court of facts and it is not
appropriate for this Court, while exercising jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution, to reappreciate evidence
or to interfere with the findings of facts as arrived at by the
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 7260/2018
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:20.10.2022
12:13:32
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/004386
Labour Court. The jurisdiction exercised by the writ court
under Article 226 is supervisory and not appellate in nature.
Reappraisal of evidence without sufficient reason in law, to
arrive at a finding of fact contrary to those arrived at by the
Subordinate Court, is not the intent of exercising the powers of
judicial review."
7. I consider that there is no illegality in the order of the learned Labour
Court. The petitioner/workman has failed to prove any evidence or bring
any material on record to prove the relationship of employer-employee
between the parties.
8. Hence, the present writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
OCTOBER 13, 2022
st
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 7260/2018
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:20.10.2022
12:13:32
