[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
M/S. Orient Paper Mills vs Abhimanyu Behera ....... Opp. Party on 18 March, 2026
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
*****
M/s. Orient Paper Mills,
Bidyut Marg, Bhubaneswar ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
Abhimanyu Behera ....... Opp. Party
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar Pani,
Advocate
For Opp. Party : Mr. Susanta Dash,
Advocate
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 18.02.2026 Date of Judgment:18.03.2026
JUDGMENT
S.K.Mishra, J;
1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the
Management of Orient Paper Mills, Bhubaneswar, under Article
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award
dated 31.03.2018, passed by the learned Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.104 of 2000.
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
2. Vide the said award, learned Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar, answered issue no.1 regarding termination of
service of the Opposite Party-Workman by way of refusal of
employment w.e.f 14.02.1999 to be illegal and unjustified.
Accordingly, so far as issue No.2 regarding relief, it granted the
relief of a lump sum compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees
Four Lakhs only), to be paid to the Opposite Party-Workman
within a period of three months from the date of publication of
the said award, with an observation that if the Management fails
to pay such compensation awarded in favour of the Opposite
Party-Workman, the same shall carry a simple interest of 6% per
annum till it is paid to the Opposite Party-Workman.
3. As is revealed from the record so also impugned
award, passed in I.D. Case No.104 of 2000, the case of the
Opposite Party-Workman (Second Party-Workman before the
Court below) is that he was initially engaged under the Resident
Officer of the Management at Bhubaneswar since 1984 on a daily
wage of Rs.25/-. Subsequently, he was appointed as a Watchman
vide office order dated 02.09.1993 on a consolidated salary of
Rs.885/- per month w.e.f 01.08.1993. Thereafter, the workman
approached the District Labour Officer (DLO), Khordha vide his
petition dated 23.02.1999 alleging non-payment of arrear wages,
statutory bonus and minimum wages etc. During joint enquiry,
the Management contended that his service has already been
terminated. It was the case of the Opposite Party-Workman that
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
the Management abruptly terminated his service without
observing any formalities and without affording any opportunity
of hearing and thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
4. It was further case of the Opposite Party-Workman
before the Labour Court that neither he had been served with any
notice nor paid with notice pay and compensation before
termination of his service by way of refusal of employment.
Hence, being aggrieved, he approached the Labour Authority,
who started a conciliation proceeding, which failed.
5. Consequently, the reference was made to the Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar for adjudication of the dispute regarding
termination of service of the Opposite Party-Workman as
Watchman w.e.f. 14.02.1999 by way of refusal of employment.
6. Being noticed, the Petitioner-Management (the First
Party-Management before the Court below) appeared and filed its
written statement, questioning the maintainability of reference on
the ground that the Opposite Party-Workman is not coming under
the definition of "Workman", as defined under Section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, shortly, the I.D. Act.
7. A further stand was taken before the Court below
that all the documents relied upon by the Opposite Party-
Workman are forged and created for the purpose of the said case.
It was further contended that at no point of time, there was any
relationship of employer and employee between the Management
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
and the Opposite Party-Workman. Hence, the question of
reinstatement, payment of back wages and other service benefits
does not arise. Accordingly, a prayer was made to reject the
prayer of the Workman with costs.
8. As is further revealed from the record, the Opposite
Party-Workman filed a Rejoinder in response to the said written
statement filed by the Management, reiterating his plea already
taken in the claim statement. It was further contended in the
Rejoinder that as the First Party- Management disputes the status
of the Second Party to be a Workman, the burden lies on the First
Party-Management to prove the same. It was further contended
that the stand of the First Party-Management that the Second
Party-Workman was not an employee under the First Party at any
point of time is false and concocted.
9. As is revealed from the Trial Court Record (TCR),
the Opposite Party-Workman examined himself as the sole
AW/WW, through whom documents were marked as Exhibits-1
to 6 with objection, excepting Exhibit 6.
10. It is further revealed from the TCR that though the
Management examined its Factory Manager as the sole MW to
negate the claim of the Workman, but no document was
exhibited from the side of the Management to substantiate the
said stand taken in its written statement.
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
11. Based on the said pleadings and evidence on record
(both oral as well as documentary), the learned Labour Court
held that there exists employer and employee relationship
between the Management and the Workman. That apart, it was
further held that the Opposite Party-Workman was initially
engaged as Watchman under the Management on the daily wage
basis w.e.f 01.11.1984 and subsequently, he was appointed on
consolidated salary basis w.e.f 01.08.1993 and he had rendered
continuous service under the management from 01.11.1984 till
he was refused employment w.e.f 14.02.1999 illegally and he is a
Workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act.
12. It is further revealed from the impugned award that,
while answering issue no.1 regarding existence of employer and
employee relationship so also legality and justifiability of the
action of the Management in refusing the employment of the
Workman w.e.f 14.02.1999, the learned Labour Court, apart from
dealing with the documentary as well as oral evidence on record
exhaustively, also relied on various judgments of the Supreme
Court reported in AIR 2006 SC 3229 : (2006) 12 SCC 233 (Steel
Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India & ors., Sita Ram &
ors. Vs. Moti Lal, reported in (2008) LLR SC and in Director
Fisheries and Terminal Division Vs. Bhikubhai, reported in
AIR 2010 SC 1236.
13. So far as issue no.2 regarding what relief the
Workman is entitled to, while answering the said issue, the
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
learned Labour Court, taking into consideration that the
production activity of the Management of Orient Paper Mills at
Brajaraj Nagar has been stopped since January, 1999 and the
Workman has already attained the age of 60 years and taking a
view that relief of reinstatement and back wages would not be
appropriate to be awarded in favour of the Second Party, instead,
it awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees
Four Lakhs only) to be payable to the Second Party-Workman
within a period of three months from the date of production of
the award, failing which the management would be liable to pay
6% interest per annum on the said awarded amount till it is paid
to the Workman.
14. The said award passed in I.D. Case No.104 of 2000
has been challenged basically on the ground that when it was
disputed by the Management as to existence of employer and
employee relationship, the burden of proof lies on the Opposite
Party to establish his claim that he was a Workman under the
Petitioner-Management. The initial burden being not
discharged by the Opposite Party-Workman, his claim ought to
have been rejected by the Labour Court without granting any
relief to the Workman.
15. The award has also been challenged on the ground
that though a dispute was raised by the Opposite Party on
23.02.1999 before the DLO, Bhubaneswar, wherein there was no
allegation of termination or refusal of employment by the
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
Petitioner-Management w.e.f. 14.02.1999, without any
conciliation proceeding with regard to alleged termination or
refusal of employment, the appropriate Government had no
jurisdiction to refer the matter for adjudication to the Labour
Court.
16. The award of the learned Labour Court has also
been challenged on the ground that the said award is perverse, as
the same is allegedly based on evidence led by the Opposite
Party-Workman beyond his pleadings. That apart, the learned
Labour Court, while passing the impugned award, has relied
upon the photocopies of the documents, which are marked as
exhibits with objection and none of the other witnesses, who are
conversant with the said documents, excepting the disputant
Workman, were examined to prove the documents marked as
Exhibits 1 to 5.
17. Mr. Pani, learned Counsel for the Petitioner,
drawing attention of this Court to the complaint dated 23.02.1999
of the Opposite Party-Workman as at Annexure-1, submitted that
though the Opposite Party raised an industrial dispute with regard
to non-issuance of appointment order, regularization of his
service, promotion, non-payment of minimum wages, so also
bonus, however, he never raised any dispute regarding alleged
refusal of employment w.e.f 14.02.1999, the reference dated
17.07.2000, as at Annexure-2, made by the appropriate
Government, which is bad. Consequently, the award passed by
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
the learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar based on such faulty
reference is also bad, as vide the said award the learned Labour
Court has adjudicated and passed the impugned award pertaining
to a non-existent dispute.
17.1. Mr. Pani, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-
Management, drawing attention of this Court to para 14 of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Director Fisheries Terminal
Division (supra), further submitted that learned Labour Court
mis-read and mis-applied the said judgment while passing the
impugned award and drew adverse inference against the
Management with a presumption that had the registers/ records
been produced by the Management, it could have gone against it.
17.2. Mr. Pani, further submitted that as per the settled
position of law, as held in Director Fisheries Terminal Division
(supra), had the Opposite Party-Workman moved any application
before the learned Labour Court calling for the records and had
there been any direction to produce the said records, for non-
production of such documents/ records, the learned Labour Court
would have been justified in drawing adverse inference against
the Management for non-production of such records/registers so
also coming to a conclusion regarding shifting of burden of
proof, relying on the said judgment .
17.3. Relying on the judgment in R.M. Yellatti Vs.
Assistant Executive Engineer reported in AIR (2006) SC 355,
learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that even
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
though the provisions of Evidence Act do not apply to the
proceedings under the I.D. Act, when there was a denial of
existence of employer and employee relationship, the burden of
proof lies on the Claimant/Workman regarding existence of such
relationship so also working for 240 days in a given year. Such
burden is discharged only upon the Workman stepping into the
witness box and moving an application calling upon the
Employer to produce before the Court the nominal muster rolls
for the relevant period and other documents, including wage
register and attendance register. In the given facts and
circumstances, the Labour Court was not justified in drawing
adverse inference against the Petitioner-Management for non-
production of attendance register by the Management.
18. Per contra, Mr. Dash, learned Counsel for the
Opposite Party-Workman, drawing attention of this Court to the
Objection/Written Statement filed by the Management before the
Court below in I.D. Case No.104 of 2000 as at Annexure-4,
submitted that such a plea regarding not raising any dispute
regarding refusal of employment has been taken for the first time
before this Court. The Petitioner-Management never raised the
issue regarding maintainability of the reference before the
learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
18.1. Drawing attention of this Court to the Failure Report
dated 31.01.2000 as at Annexure-B to the Counter Affidavit, Mr.
Dash further submitted that though the Opposite Party-Workman
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
filed a complaint petition dated 23.02.1999 before the DLO
(Khordha) Bhubaneswar making an allegation regarding non-
payment of arrear wages, statutory minimum wages, bonus etc.,
as the Management Representative took a stand before the
Conciliation Officer that the Opposite Party-Workman is no
more working with the Management w.e.f 14.02.1999, knowing
so, the Workman filed another petition on 19.04.1999 addressed
to the DLO (Khordha), Bhubaneswar alleging that the
Management of Orient Paper Mills had refused the employment
w.e.f 14.02.1999. The Management, in addition to its earlier
view dated 03.04.1999, again submitted an additional written
view on 15.07.1999 taking a stand therein that the workman used
to be engaged occasionally on daily wage basis prior to 1995. As
the Management did not agree for payment of legal dues of the
workman and reinstatement so also payment of back wages, the
Conciliation failed. A report was submitted by the Conciliation
Officer-cum-Assistant Labour Officer, Bhubaneswar, based on
which the reference was made by the State Government on
17.07.2000 to the learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar for
adjudication of the dispute regarding legality and justifiability of
the action of the Management in refusing employment to the
Opposite Party-Workman w.e.f 14.02.1999, who was working as
a Watchman in Bhubaneswar office of the Management.
18.2. Mr. Dash, learned Counsel further submitted that
since no such point was ever raised by the Management in its
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
WS before the learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar regarding
legality and validity of the reference dated 17.07.2000 so also
allegedly not raising any dispute by the workman regarding
refusal of employment, there was no occasion on the part of the
workman to deal with such issue in his Rejoinder. That apart, in
the present writ petition, impugned is the award passed in I.D.
Case NO.104 of 2000, not the reference made by the State
Government, as at Annexure-2.
18.3. Mr. Dash submitted that in view of the settled
position of law, the Management ought to have challenged the
said reference dated 17.07.2000 in a writ petition. The Labour
Court, being creature of statute, could not have adjudicated the
issue regarding the legality and validity of the said reference,
even if it would have been raised before it by the Management.
18.4. Mr. Dash, further submitted that such an issue not
being raised before the learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in
I.D. Case No.104 of 2000, it is no more open for the Petitioner-
Management to be raised for the first time before this Court. The
sole intention of the Management is to mislead this Court and
annul the impugned award on technical ground, which is
otherwise legal and justified.
18.5. Mr. Dash, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-
Workman, drawing attention of this Court to the deposition of
MW.1, what he deposed during his further cross-examination on
SA on 08.03.2018, submitted that because of non-production of
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
the attendance register and not proving the said alleged register
in existence before the Court below, the learned Labour Court
was justified in drawing adverse inference against the
Management for non-production of registers/records relying on
the judgment of Supreme Court in Sita Ram & ors.(supra). The
learned Labour Court also drew adverse inference for not
consulting with the officers, who were working under the pay roll
of the Management and had endorsed on the documents marked
as Exhibits-2 and 3 from the side of workman to ascertain the
genuineness of such documents, so also non-examination of the
said officers as Management Witnesses to disprove the said
documents.
18.6. Relying on the observation made in internal page 6
& 7 of the impugned award, it was further argued by Mr. Dash,
learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-Workman that so far as
stand of the Management regarding non-existence of employer -
employee relationship, in view of the divergent stand of the
Management in its written statement vis-a-vis in the pleadings
made in the RMC No.04 of 2007, so also the Failure Report,
which formed part of the Reference, the learned Labour Court
was justified in observing that the Management cannot be
permitted to blow hot and cold in the same breath. It can never be
allowed to say at one time that certain relationship exists and
thereby obtain some advantage and then turn around and say it
never existed, for the purpose of securing some other advantage.
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
18.7. Relying on the constitution bench judgment of
Supreme Court in Sayed Yakub Vs. K.S. Radha Krishna and
others, reported in AIR 1964 SC 477, learned Counsel for the
Opposite Party-Workman argued that finding of facts reached by
the Labour Court, as a result of appreciation of evidence on
record, cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An
error of law, which is apparent from the face of the record, can be
corrected by a writ, but not an error of facts, however grave it
may appear to be. With regard to a finding of facts recorded by
the Labour Court, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown
that in recording the said findings, the Court has erroneously
refused to admit admissible and material evidences or has
erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence, which has
influenced the impugned findings. Similarly, if a finding of fact
is based on no evidence, which would be regarded as an error of
law, can be corrected by a writ of certiorari.
18.8. Mr. Dash, submitted that as none of the grounds
urged in the writ petition, based on which the award has been
impugned, is in conformity with the settled position of law, the
present writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limine with
costs.
18.9. Mr. Dash further argued that though the reference
was made in the year 2000 to the Labour Court and the
Petitioner-Management, being noticed, appeared in I.D. Case
No.104 of 2000 and filed its written statement on 28.08.2001,
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
thereafter took repeated adjournments in the said case.
Subsequently, to the reason best known, it did not appear and
contest the said case on merit, for which an ex-parte award was
passed on 02.02.2007. The Petitioner-Management filed an
application for restoration, which was registered as R.M.C.
No.04 of 2007, for setting aside the ex-parte award, which was
ultimately dismissed on 07.11.2007. Being aggrieved, W.P.(C)
No.133 of 2008 was preferred by the Petitioner-Management,
which was ultimately disposed of on 24.01.2017, setting aside
the ex-parte award so also the order passed in R.M.C. No.04 of
2007 and remitting the matter back to the Labour Court for re-
hearing of Restoration Misc. Case No.04 of 2007.
18.10. On being so directed, the Restoration Misc. Case
No.04 of 2007 was allowed. Ultimately, after giving ample
opportunity to the parties, the learned Labour Court has passed
the impugned award in I.D. Case No.104 of 2000. There being no
infirmity in the said award, the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed in limine with exemplary costs, as the conduct of the
Petitioner-Management itself deserves so, wherefrom it can be
well established that to harass and humiliate the Workman, the
Petitioner-Management indulged into series of litigations thereby
delayed final adjudication in I.D. Case No.104 of 2000 . Due to
delay in adjudication of dispute, during pendency of the said I.D.
Case before the learned Labour Court, the Workman attained the
age of superannuation, for which no direction could be given by
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
the Labour Court to reinstate him with all consequential benefits
in terms of the settled position of law.
18.11. Mr. Dash further submitted that the Petitioner-
Management intentionally dragged the litigation to harass the
Poor-Workman, who was illegally disengaged in the year 1999.
He further submitted that, as per the instruction received, the
present age of the Opposite Party-Workman is 72 years and he is
having several old age ailments and at present bedridden .The
poor workman, who is out of employment since 1999, to mitigate
his financial hardship, is eagerly waiting to get the financial
benefits which would be flowing out of the impugned award.
19. From the pleadings, documents on record (including
TCR) and the case laws relied upon by the learned Counsel for
the Parties, the only issue which emerges to be answered in the
present writ petition is whether there is any perversity in the
impugned award dated 31.03.2018 passed in I.D. Case No.104 of
2000.
20. As has been detailed above, the Workman, to prove
his case adduced evidence as the sole WW and documents were
also exhibited as Exhibits-1 to 6 through him to substantiate the
existence of employer and employee relationship so also
continuous working under the Management till the date of refusal
of employment w.e.f 14.02.1999.
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
21. It is revealed from the impugned award that the
Petitioner-Management took a specific stand in its written
statement that the Opposite Party never served under it as a
Workman. Thus, while dealing with issue no.1, the issue
regarding existence of Employer-Employee relationship was
discussed and decided first. Apart from relying on the evidence
of P.W. No.1, so also the documents marked as Exhibits 1 to 3,
in internal page 7 of the award, the learned Labour Court
observed as follows:-
"The management emphatically urged that all the
documents exhibited by the 2nd party are forged and
manufactured. MW.1 during his cross-examination at
para-15 categorically admitted that separate records
and registers were being maintained for the employees
working under Bhubaneswar Orient Paper Mills
Office and the same would disclose whether the
employee was actually working under the management
during the relevant period or not. He also deposed
under para-15 of his cross-examination that after
going through the attendance register maintained
from the year 1993 till date he was confirmed that the
workman was never working in the concerned
establishment and further admitted that the said
register was not produced before this Court. The
reason being best known to the management, what
prevented it to file the above records/registers which
are best piece of evidence for adjudication of the
subject matter before this Court. So, there is every
reason to presume that had the registers/records been
produced, it could have gone against the
management. Therefore, for withholding such best
evidence within the special knowledge of the
employer, adverse inference can safely be drawn
against the management. It may be useful to refer a
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sita
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
Ram & Ors. Vs. Moti Lal (2008-LLR-S.C) wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that when certain records
under exclusive custody of the employer and the
employer withholds those records, adverse inference
may be drawn. Whatever it may be stated above,
MW.1 during his cross-examination at para-16
categorically admitted that after filing of the
documents by the workman before this Court, they
came to know about the existence of such documents
and P.B.Gupta and D.M.Bhandari were alive by that
time i.e. in the year, 2000. In the said para, he further
stated that he could not say whether the management
has taken any step to ascertain the genuineness of
issuance of Exts.2 to 4 either from P.B.Gupta and
D.M.Bhandari. He also could not say whether the
management had lodged any FIR regarding the
alleged above forged documents prepared by the
workman or not."
(Emphasis Supplied)
22. Since in the aforesaid para there is a reference to
paragraphs 15 & 16 of the deposition of MW No.1, which he
deposed during his cross-examination, so also alleged admission,
it would be apt to reproduce below para 15 & 16 of deposition of
MW No.1 from the TCR for ready reference:
"15. It is a fact that separate records and registers
were being maintained for the employees working
under Bhubaneswar Orient Paper Mills Office and
the same will disclose about the employee actually
working there under during the relevant period. After
going through the Attendance Register maintained
for the period 1993 till date I got confirm that the
present workman was never working in the above
said establishment. It is a fact that the said register
was not produced before this Court by the
management. It is not a fact that knowingly we are
not submitting the said register along with the wage
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
register before this Court as they will reveal
regarding the engagement of the workman.
16- Bhubaneswar Orient Paper Mills Office has been
registered under Shops and Commercial
Establishment Act. It is a fact that after filing of the
documents by the workman before this Court we
came to know about the existence of such documents
and P.B. Gupta and D.M. Bhandari were alive by
that time i.e. in the year, 2000. I cannot say whether
management has taken any step to ascertain the
genuineness of issuance of Exts.2, 3 and 4 either
from P.B.Gupta and D.M.Bhandari or not. I cannot
say whether the management had lodged any FIR
regarding the alleged above forged documents
prepared by the workman or not."
(Emphasis supplied)
23. It is further revealed from the internal page 8 of the
impugned award that, taking note of the said statement of MW
No.1 in para 15 & 16 during his cross-examination so also
relying on the judgment cited by the Management in Shalimar
Chemicals Works Ltd. Vs. Surendra Oil & Dal, reported in
(2010) 8 SCC 423, the learned Labour Court held that the said
judgment is not applicable to the present case as the provision of
the Evidence Act is not strictly applicable to the cases under the
I.D. Act.
24. It was further observed in the impugned Award that
merely disputing the genuineness of the documents, out of which
Exhibits 2 & 3 were rather prepared by the office of the
Management, without any supporting documents, is not
acceptable. Further, relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
Director Fisheries Terminal Division (supra), learned Labour
Court categorically came to a conclusion that the Opposite Party-
Workman was initially working as Watchman under the
Management on the daily wages basis w.e.f 01.11.1984 and he
had rendered continuous service under the Management from
01.11.1984, till he was refused employment w.e.f. 14.02.1999
and he is a Workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the
I.D.Act.
25. So far as scope of interference under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, as held by the Constitution Bench of
Supreme Court in Sayed Yakub (supra), paragraph no.7 of the
said judgment, being relevant, are reproduced below:
"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
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
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 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 are 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 Art. 226 to issue a writ of
certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide
Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, 1955-1
SCR 1104: ((S) AIR 1955 SC 233): Nagendra
Nath v. Commr. of Hills Division, 1958 SCR
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
1240: (AIR 1958 SC 398) and Kaushalya Devi
v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1960 SC 1168."
(Emphasis Supplied)
26. Similarly, in Ranjeet Singh Vs. Ravi Prakash,
reported in AIR 2004 SC 3892 : (2004) 3 SCC 682, it was held
by the Supreme Court that power under Article 226 of the
Constitution is not available to the exercise for indulging re-
appreciation or re-evaluation of evidence like a Court of appeal.
It was further held that the writ Court should not exercise its
supervisory power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and interfere with an order, if it is possible to form two opinions
on the materials available on record and the
Tribunal/Authority/Court below has formed one opinion.
27. It was further held in Ranjeet Singh (supra) that the
scope of interference with findings of fact of the lower Tribunal
is limited, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution in a writ of certiorari and such findings can only be
interfered with, if gross illegality or perversity is shown on the
face of the order of the Court below.
28. Though the award of the learned Labour Court has
also been challenged on the ground that the said award is
perverse, as the same is allegedly based on evidence led by the
Opposite Party-Workman beyond his pleadings, but it has not
been specifically pleaded or argued before this Court as to which
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
part of evidence are beyond pleadings, which material evidence
were not taken into consideration in the impugned Award.
29. After taking note of the pleadings on record, TCR
and arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Parties so
also contents of the impugned award passed in I.D. Case No.104
of 2000, we are of the view that findings of the learned Labour
Court as at Annexure-8, more particularly findings under issue
no.1, at running page 43 to 47 of the writ petition (internal page 4
to 8 of the Award) are based on the pleadings and oral as well as
documentary evidences on record so also in conformity with the
legal provisions and the settled position of law and do not
warrant any interference by the writ court, exercising the
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
30. So far as argument advanced before this Court
regarding legality and validity of the reference made by the State
Government dated 17.07.2000, as is revealed from the
objection/written statement filed by the Petitioner-Management
in I.D. Case No.104 of 2000 (Annexure-4), admittedly, no such
stand was taken before the learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
Rather a stand was taken therein that the said proceeding is not
maintainable, as the disputant is not a workman, as defined under
Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act.
31. That apart, in the present writ petition also, the
Management has not challenged the reference made by the
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
appropriate Government. In addition to the above, as held by the
Supreme Court in National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs.
State of Rajastan & Ors., reported in (2000) 1 SCC 371 the
Industrial Adjudicator, being a creature of statute, is incompetent
to adjudicate an issue regarding legality and /or validity of a
reference made by the appropriate Government.
32. Further, as is revealed from the Failure Report
available in the TCR, which has also been annexed to the
Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party-Workman as at
Annexure-B, admittedly, during conciliation /joint discussion
before the Conciliation Officer pertaining to complaint petition
dated 23.02.1999, the Workman filed another petition on
19.04.1999, which was addressed to the District Labour Officer
(Khordha) Bhubaneswar, alleging refusal of employment by the
Petitioner-Management w.e.f 14.02.1999.
33. Hence, this Court is of the view that such a ground
urged before this Court for the first time is to mislead this Court,
with desperate intention to nullify a well discussed and reasoned
award passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar on a
technical ground, which is not permissible under law.
34. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of
merit, stands dismissed.
35. Since the writ petition has been dismissed, even
though there are provisions under the I.D. Act for execution of an
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
Award passed by the industrial adjudicator, keeping in mind the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, so also the
admitted facts on record that the poor workman is fighting out the
litigation for the last 26 years to get justice, so also the present
age of the Workman, who is around 72 years old, and is suffering
from various ailments and bedridden and adjudication of I.D.
Case No.104/2000 got delayed due to laches on the part of
Petitioner-Management, it is directed that the Petitioner-
Management shall implement the Award dated 31.03.2018
passed in I.D. Case No.104 of 2000 within one month hence. The
Petitioner-Management is directed to pay the awarded
compensation amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs
only) with accrued interest thereon till the said amount is actually
paid to the Opposite Party-Workman, in terms of the said Award
dated 31.03.2018, passed in I.D. Case No.104 of 2000.
36. No order as to costs.
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge
I agree
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Signature Not Verified
Dated 18th March, 2026/Banita Digitally Signed
Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI
Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER
Reason: AUTHENTICATION
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Mar-2026 17:46:24
W.P.(C) No. 12498 OF 2018
