Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rituraj Parmar vs Regional Labor Commissioner on 5 March, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
WA No. 1926 of 2023
(RITURAJ PARMAR Vs REGIONAL LABOR COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS)
Dated : 05-03-2024
Shri Haresh Kuma Pardasani, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the Respondent.
1. Learned counsel for Respondent(s) No. 2 to 5 has raised a preliminary
objection with regard to maintainability of the Writ Appeal, since the writ
petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and
consequently order was passed exercising the power under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Thus, this intra-Court Appeal is not maintainable.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/Workmen placed reliance on a Full
Bench decision of this Court in Shailendra Kumar Vs. Divisional Forest
Officer reported in (2017) 4 MPLJ 109.
3. In our view, the Court has merely set aside the award of Labour Court
and has not passed any consequential directions. Merely because employer has
filed the petition with a caption that it is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, it will not decide the character of order passed by learned
Single Judge in the instant case. It is mainly the nature of power exercised which
will determine whether the impugned order is passed under Article 226 or under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Full Bench opined as under :-
16. Therefore, we find that an order of the Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal is
amenable to the writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution. In exercise of writ of
certiorari, the High Court demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction
or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal.
The Constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as T.C.
Basappa v. T. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440, held as under:-
"7. The second essential feature of a writ of certiorari is that the control which is
exercised through it over judicial or quasi- judicial tribunals or bodies is not in an appellate
but supervisory capacity. In granting a writ of certiorari the superior court does not exercise
the powers of an appellate tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which
the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which
it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own
views for those of the inferior tribunal. The offending order or proceeding so to say is put out
of the way as one which should not be used to the detriment of any person [Vide Per Lord
Cairns in Walshall's Overseers v. London and North Western Railway Co., (1879)
4 AC 30, 39.]"
17. But issuance of the directions after setting aside an order passed in exercise of
powers conferred under Article 226, is only under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Therefore, the Court exercises composite jurisdiction which will make intra Court appeal
maintainable. Thus the order passed by the Division Bench in Superintendent, Rajmata
Vijaya Raje Scindia Regional Agricultural Research Station, Ujjain's Case (Supra)
does not lay down correct principal of law and is thus overruled.
(Emphasis Supplied)
4. In view of this Full Bench decision, this writ appeal is maintainable.
We are unable to hold that the impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge was in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
only.
5. The objection is overruled.
6. List this case for hearing on admission in the week commencing
18.03.2024.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Vatan
