The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the legality or correctness of an Award passed by the Labour Court cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Labour Court assumes the powers of a Civil Court when passing an award under the Industrial Disputes Act. Any orders from a Civil Court can be contested before the High Court only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction, it held.
The bench comprising of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed,
“If the challenge is limited only to the correctness or otherwise of the award, then it has to be considered that the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been invoked but admittedly, in the present case, the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to question the legality of an award which has been passed by the Industrial Tribunal by raising disputed questions of fact which is not permissible under law.”
BACKGROUND FACTS
Vishwakarma Gun Works (“Petitioner”) is a firm engaged in the manufacturing of guns. The Respondents No. 4 to 6 were working as piecemeal workers with the Petitioner. Allegedly, the workers had resigned from the Petitioner firm and started working with another firm. Subsequently, the workers filed an application before the Labour Commissioner under the Industrial Disputes Act against the Petitioner, seeking reinstatement in service with back wages. Thereafter, the J&K Government transferred the Dispute to Labour Court. In 2008, the Labour Court passed an ex-parte Award against the Petitioner.
The Petitioner challenged the Award before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was argued that the workers in question had voluntarily resigned while accepting the terms of resignation and their dues were settled. Further, the workers were not regular employees and were engaged on a piecemeal basis.
The workers argued that the resignation letter did not indicate voluntary resignation and their employment continued beyond the date mentioned in the letter. The termination was unlawful.
HIGH COURT VERDICT
The Court opined that the matter involved disputed questions of fact which cannot be dealt with in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
“This court while exercising the writ jurisdiction cannot go into the disputed question of fact as all the questions of facts have been gone in detail by the learned Tribunal by adducing the evidence by passing a reasoned order”, the Court noted.
The High Court cannot exercise the powers of an appellate court under Article 226 by re-appreciating the evidence, which has been led before the Labour Court against the award passed by Industrial Tribunal. The Bench held as under:
“The finding recorded by the Learned Tribunal is well reasoned and on the basis of evidence lead, I don’t find any perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal which could be basis for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no legal foundation of any perversity in the pleadings of the writ petitioner and rather the petition raises disputed questions of fact. The Learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence has recorded finding of facts and reached an appropriate conclusion which cannot be faulted on the mere asking of the party without any logical basis or reasoning.”
The Court clarified that when it comes to challenging an award under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court effectively assumes the role of a Civil Court. The orders passed by the Civil Court can only be challenged before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and from such challenge, the intra Court appeal would lie. The legality of an Award passed by the Labour Court cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution.
“If the challenge is limited only to the correctness or otherwise of the award, then it has to be considered that the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been invoked but admittedly, in the present case, the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to question the legality of an award which has been passed by the Industrial Tribunal by raising disputed questions of fact which is not permissible under law.”
Further, highlighting that the Petitioner had willingly accepted the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal Court for a considerable period without raising any objections, the Court observed that the Petitioner’s delayed challenge under Article 226 is an afterthought. Hence, the Petitioner is estopped from contesting the Award at such a belated stage.
‘After having accepted the impugned award of the Tribunal dated 29.02.2008 even after its publication in Government Gazette for more than two years, it doesn’t lie in the mouth of the petitioners to agitate belatedly that the award is bad as admittedly the instant writ petition was filed on 09.12.2010 i.e after two years and ten months and delay in challenging the award belatedly has not been explained’, the bench maintained.
The writ petition was dismissed and the Registry has been directed to release the awarded amount in favour of workers after due verification.
Case Title: Vishwakarma Gun Works Vs Industrial Tribunal Court and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 220
Case No.: OWP No. 1419/2010
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Nigam Mehta, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate.
Click Here To Read/Download Judgment
Page Source : Live Law
