Orissa High Court
Debendra Nath Mahana vs The Presiding Officer on 29 April, 2025
Author: S.K.Sahoo
Bench: S.K.Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.22781 of 2024
Debendra Nath Mahana .... Petitioner
Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty,
Advocate
-versus-
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar & another .... Opp. Parties
Ms. G.B. Priya, Advocate,
Mr. Aswini Kumar Sahoo,
Advocate for O.P. No.2
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 29.04.2025
04. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement
(video conferencing/physical mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2.
3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
seeking for quashing the award dated 28.03.2024 passed
by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.22 of 2022.
4. From the impugned award, it appears that the
Government of Odisha, Labour & ESI Department,
invoking the power under Section 12(5) Clause (d) of
Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 sent the
following reference for adjudication vide Memo dated
03.09.2022 which reads as under:
"Whether the action of the Management of M/s.
Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited, Charge
Chrome Plant, D.P. Nagar, Randia, Bhadrak in
making altercation/correction of date of birth of
workman Sri Debendranath Mahana unilaterally
at the fag end of his service and retiring him
from service w.e.f. 2.4.2021 basing on such
altered date of birth is legal and/or justified? If
not, to what relief the workman Sri Mahana is
entitled?"
5. The factual matrix of the case reveals that the
petitioner, being a technical qualified person was
appointed as a Fitter-Mechanical (Boiler Attendant) by the
management and attached to the complainant, the
opposite party no.2 M/s. Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited
and he joined on 14.06.1993 under the management and
he was a regular employee. The management, taking into
account his School Leaving Certificate maintained his
Service Book so also other official Registers by mentioning
his date of birth as 03.04.1966. In his ESI Card and
Aadhaar Card also, this date of birth was mentioned as
such.
It appears that a show cause notice was issued to
the petitioner by the opposite party no.2 management for
allegedly furnishing the false information/ manipulating
the forged documents in support of his date of birth at the
time of employment.
It is the case of the petitioner that such show cause
was issued to him by the management on being misled by
his elder brother namely Surath Mahana. He submitted a
detailed reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the
petitioner received a letter dated 05.01.2021 from the
Senior Manager (P & A) of the management wherein it is
mentioned that his date of birth has been reckoned as
03.04.1963 and accordingly, he would be retiring from his
service on 02.04.2021 on completion of 58 years of age.
Though a request was made on behalf of the petitioner
before the Senior Manager (P & A) not to consider his date
of birth as 03.04.1963 instead of 03.04.1966, but the
Senior Manager expressed his inability to do so.
The petitioner approached the concerned Labour
Authority and filed a complaint petition before the DLC,
Bhadrak in which the notices were issued to the
management of the opposite party no.2. However, he was
unsuccessful in his complaint petition. Therefore, he
approached this Court as well as the Civil Court, Bhadrak,
but there also, the petitioner failed and ultimately the
management of the opposite party no.2 retired the
petitioner from his service with effect from 02.04.2021.
It is the case of the petitioner that the management
has illegally retired him from his service with effect from
02.04.2021 taking his date of birth as 03.04.1963 and he
should have retired three years later if his date of birth
would have been taken as 03.04.1966 and therefore, he is
entitled to the consequential service benefits.
6. It is the case of the management opposite party
No.2 that the petitioner was initially appointed as a
Trainee under the management vide Appointment Letter
dated 12.06.1993 and subsequently, his service was
regularized on 04.07.1994 in the post of Fitter. The
Transfer Certificate, which was produced by the petitioner
while joining the service was stated to have been issued
by the Head Master, Brahmapur High School, Icchapur,
District- Bhadrak, in which the date of birth of the
petitioner was mentioned as 03.04.1966. However, later,
it was found to be fabricated. The management wrote a
letter to the Head Master of that School for inquiring about
the genuineness of the Certificate and the Head Master
gave his reply and clarified that such a Transfer Certificate
was not issued to the person concerned by his institution
and from the Admission Register of the School, the date of
birth of the petitioner was found to be 03.04.1963.
Thereafter, the show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner. Ultimately when the petitioner came to know
that the documents available in the High School indicates
that his date of birth is 03.04.1963 and not 03.04.1966,
on his own, he requested the management to correct his
date of birth as 03.04.1963 and accordingly, basing on his
admission, the management not only corrected the date of
birth as 03.04.1963 for all purposes but also taking a
lenient view, imposed a minor punishment on him by
stoppage of one increment with effect from July, 2012.
It is the case of the opposite party no.2 that for
such conduct of the petitioner in submitting the false
information, he would have been inflicted with a major
punishment of dismissal from service, but the same was
not done. Not only the petitioner approached the DLC,
Bhadrak with regard to the correction of his date of birth,
but also this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.8907 of 2021.
Since no action was taken by the DLC, Bhadrak, the
petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.8907 of
2021 and this Court directed the DLC, Bhadrak to conclude
the proceeding and accordingly, DLC, Bhadrak submitted a
failure report before the appropriate Government. The
petitioner also preferred C.S. No. 232 of 2021 for
correction of his date of birth before the learned Civil
Judge, (Sr. Division), Bhadrak along with an interim
application vide I.A. No. 163 of 2021, but the learned
Court dismissed the interim application on the ground that
the petitioner has admitted regarding the date of birth as
03.04.1963 and thereafter his Civil Suit was also
dismissed.
7. Before the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, the
petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the
Management wherein it is averred that the management
conducted the purported inquiry behind his back and the
petitioner was unduly coerced by the authorities of the
management to sign on some typed papers prepared by
the management and the same was shown to be his
purported reply, which was not signed by him, rather it
was with a fear of losing of job.
8. The learned Labour Court framed the following
issues on the basis of the pleadings:-
"1. Whether the action of the management of
M/s Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd., Charge
Chrome Plant, D.P. Nagar Randia, Bhadrak in
making altercation/correction of date of birth
of workman Sri DebendranathMahana
unilaterally at the fag end of his service and
retiring him from service w.e.f. 2.4.2021
basing on such altered date of birth is legal
and/or justified?
2. If not, to what relief the workman Sri
Mahana is entitled?"
9. Before the learned Labour Court, both the parties
adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The
learned Labour Court came to hold that in view of non-
filing the Matriculation Certificate, which is the best piece
of evidence in the present case, so also the original of
Ext.8 by the petitioner, the documents under Ext.3 i.e. the
provisional National Trade Certificate of the petitioner and
Ext.5, the Aadhaar Card of the petitioner wherein his date
of birth has been shown as 03.04.1966 cannot be taken
into account. The Court further held that Ext.8 is a forged
document basing on which the date of birth of the
petitioner was considered as 03.04.1966 in his service
record so also the record of the management at the time
of his joining on being produced by the petitioner. The
Court also took into account the Admission Register of the
School which reflects date of birth of the petitioner to be
03.04.1963. This has been held by the learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Bhadrak in I.A. No.163 of 2021. Ext.A
which is a letter of the Head Master of the Brahmapur High
School, Icchapur, District-Bhadrak wherein it has been
mentioned that as per the school record, the actual date of
birth of the petitioner is 03.04.1963.
Analyzing the oral as well as the documentary
evidence, the Court came to hold that the action of the
management, opposite party no.2 in retiring the petitioner
from his service with effect from 02.04.2021 by
altering/correcting his date of birth as 03.04.1963 cannot
be termed as illegal, rather justified and accordingly, the
petitioner was held to be not entitled to any relief as
claimed by him.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the
case has been instituted by the management basing on
the complaint of his elder brother namely Surath Mahana.
On account of the property dispute, such type of complaint
was filed against the petitioner and the management
should not have considered such complaint and basing on
the report of the Head Master of the School, the
management should not have held the date of birth of the
petitioner to be 03.04.1963 particularly when not only in
the Transfer Certificate but also in the provisional National
Trade Certificate vide Ext.3 and also in the Aadhaar Card
of the petitioner, the date of birth has been mentioned as
03.04.1966.
11. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, on the
other hand, supported the stand of the management taken
in the written statement filed before the Labour Court and
submitted that a very lenient view was taken by the
management by just stoppage of one increment instead of
removing the petitioner from his service on the ground of
filing the forged documents at the time of entry into
service. It is further argued that the matter has been duly
inquired into after receiving the complaint and it was
found to be correct and the Head Master of the School,
after verification of the School Admission Register found
that the date of birth of the petitioner was not 03.04.1966
but 03.04.1963 and therefore, the management rightly
corrected the date of birth in the service record and all the
concerned records and accordingly, the petitioner has
retired from his service with effect from 02.04.2021 and
there is no illegality in the same.
12. Adverting to the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, we find that there has
been an admission made by the petitioner regarding the
correction of his date of birth to 03.04.1963 after the
report from the Head Master of the School was received
and he has unsuccessfully challenged the correction of the
date of birth to 03.04.1963 not only before the DLC,
Bhadrak but also before the learned Civil Judge, Sr.
Division, Bhadrak in the Civil Suit and there is no further
challenge to the order of the learned Civil Court and
therefore, once the same has attended finality and the
petitioner was satisfied with the order of the learned Civil
Judge and accordingly basing on the corrected entry made
in the service book, he was allowed to retire after
attaining the age of 58 years on 02.04.2021, it cannot be
said that the opposite party no.2 management has
committed any wrong.
13. At this stage, it is necessary to discuss the scope of
interference with the order passed by the Industrial
Tribunal/ Labour Court by this Court in exercise of its
power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India.
In the case of Syed Yakoob -Vrs.- K.S.
Radhakrishnan reported in A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 477, a
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
follows:-
"7. The question about the limits of the
jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of
certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently
considered by this Court and the true legal
position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A
writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting
errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior
Courts or Tribunals: these are cases where
orders are passed by inferior Courts or Tribunals
without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a
result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ
can similarly be issued where in exercise of
jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or
Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for
instance, it decides a question without giving an
opportunity to be heard to the party affected by
the order, or where the procedure adopted in
dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles
of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt
that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari
is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court
exercising it is not entitled to act as an
appellate Court. This limitation necessarily
means that findings of fact reached by the
inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the
appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or
questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law
which is apparent on the face of the record can
be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact,
however grave it may appear to be. In regard to
a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ
of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in
recording the said finding, the Tribunal had
erroneously refused to admit admissible and
material evidence, or had erroneously admitted
inadmissible evidence which has influenced the
impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact
is based on no evidence, that would be
regarded as an error of law which can be
corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with
this category of cases, however, we must
always bear in mind that a finding of fact
recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged
in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the
ground that the relevant and material evidence
adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or
inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The
adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a
point and the inference of fact to be drawn from
the said finding is within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points
cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is
within these limits that the jurisdiction
conferred on the High Courts under Article 226
to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately
exercised (Ref: Hari Vishnu Kamath -Vrs.-
Ahmad Ishaque : A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 233;
Nagendra Nath -Vrs.- Commr. of Hills
Division : A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 398 and
Kaushalya Devi -Vrs.- Bachittar Singh :
A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1168)."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadhu
Ram -Vrs.- Delhi Transport Corporation reported in
A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1467 has held as follows:-
"3. We are afraid the High Court misdirected
itself. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution is truly wide but, for that very
reason, it has to be exercised with great
circumspection. It is not for the High Court to
constitute itself into an appellate Court over
Tribunals constituted under special legislations
to resolve disputes of a kind qualitatively
different from ordinary civil disputes and to re-
adjudicate upon questions of fact decided by
those Tribunals. That the questions decided
pertain to jurisdictional facts does not entitle
the High Court to interfere with the findings on
jurisdictional facts which the Tribunal is well
competent to decide. Where the circumstances
indicate that the Tribunal has snatched at
jurisdiction, the High Court may be justified in
interfering. But where the Tribunal gets
jurisdiction only if a reference is made and it is
therefore impossible ever to say that the
Tribunal has clutched at jurisdiction, we do not
think that it was proper for the High Court to
substitute its judgment for that of the Labour
Court and hold that the workman had raised no
demand with the management...."
In the case of Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao
-Vrs.- Ashalata S. Guram reported in (1986) 4
Supreme Court Cases 447, it is held as follows:-
"21. It is true that in exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High
Court could go into the question of facts or look
into the evidence if justice so requires it, if
there is any misdirection in law or a view of fact
taken in the teeth of preponderance of
evidence. But the High Court should decline to
exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution to look into the fact in
the absence of clear cut down reasons where
the question depends upon the appreciation of
evidence. The High Court also should not
interfere with a finding within the jurisdiction of
the inferior tribunal except where the findings
were perverse and not based on any material
evidence or it resulted in manifest of injustice."
In the case of M/s. Pepsico India Holding Pvt.
Ltd. -Vrs.- Krishna Kant reported in (2015) 4
Supreme Court Cases 270, it is held that the High Court
in the guise of exercising its jurisdiction normally should
not interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution and
convert itself into a Court of appeal.
In the case of B.S.N.L. -Vrs.- Bhurumal reported
in A.I.R. 2014 S.C. 1188, it is held that the findings of
fact by the Central Government Industrial Disputes -cum-
Labour Court (CGIT) are not be interfered with by the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Interference is permissible only in cases where the
findings are totally perverse or based on no evidence.
Insufficiency of evidence cannot be a ground to interdict
the findings as it is not the function of the High Court to
reappreciate the evidence.
14. In view of the settled principle, this Court, while
exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India should not interfere with the
findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court unless there
is an apparent error on the face of the award shocking
the conscience of the Court and the findings given in the
award are perverse or unreasonable either based on no
evidence or based on illegal/unacceptable evidence or
against the weight of evidence or outrageously defies
logic so as to suffer from irrationality or the award has
been passed in violation of the principles of natural
justice. If the Labour Court erroneously refused to advert
to admissible material evidence or had erroneously
admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the
impugned findings, the same can be interfered by a writ
of certiorari. Adequacy of evidence cannot be looked into
in the writ jurisdiction but consideration of extraneous
materials and non-consideration of relevant materials can
certainly be taken into account. Findings of fact of the
Labour Court should not be disturbed on the ground that
a different view might be possible on the said facts.
Inadequacy of evidence or the possibility of reading the
evidence in a different manner, would not amount to
perversity.
15. After going through the reasonings assigned by the
learned Labour Court, we do not find any infirmity or
illegality in the same so as to be interfered with in this
writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits,
stands dismissed.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Subhasis
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 30-Apr-2025 18:58:37
