2001 (9) TMI 915 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether an appeal would lie against an order made in writ petition before the High Court challenging an order of the labour court? Held that - Appeal dismissed. It cannot be stated that the conclusions emanating from the orders of the Industrial Court are one of non-application of mind to the facts or ignoring any of the relevant facts or taking into consideration any of the facts not available on record much less can the conclusions be characterised as perverse. Thus the writ jurisdiction has been appropriately exercised by the learned Single Judge. Hence we decline to interfere with the order by the learned Single Judge. The appellants in these appeals also claim payment of back wages. On that aspect also both the Industrial Court and the learned Single Judge have given cogent reasons and therefore there is no justification to interfere with that aspect of the matter either.

Issues involved:
1. Termination of workmen from service for negligence in performing duties.
2. Appeal against the orders of the Industrial Court regarding reinstatement without back wages.
3. Challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
4. Jurisdiction for filing appeals against orders made in writ petitions before the High Court.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The workmen were terminated from service for negligence in performing their duties, as they were found to have contravened prescribed procedures. The Labour Court concluded that the workmen had breached trust and faith in their roles, leading to their dismissals. The Industrial Court upheld the findings of negligence but directed reinstatement without back wages. The court considered the evidence of negligence but did not find proof of misappropriation of money. The court emphasized that negligence, while serious, did not warrant depriving the employees of reinstatement. The High Court upheld the Industrial Court's decision, stating that denial of back wages was a sufficient punishment for the negligence committed by the workmen.

2. The appeals were filed against the orders of the Industrial Court, challenging the reinstatement without back wages. The court examined the principle of loss of confidence in an employee, emphasizing that specific criteria must be met to refuse reinstatement on these grounds. The court analyzed the objective facts and inferences drawn regarding the loss of confidence in the workmen. It was concluded that the Industrial Court's decisions were based on facts and not unreasonable grounds. The court declined to interfere with the orders made by the Industrial Court and the learned Single Judge regarding reinstatement and denial of back wages.

3. The challenge was made against the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, who upheld the Industrial Court's decision on reinstatement without back wages. The court found that the Single Judge had appropriately exercised writ jurisdiction in considering the case. The court determined that there was no justification to interfere with the decisions made by the Industrial Court and the Single Judge, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

4. The jurisdiction for filing appeals against orders made in writ petitions before the High Court was discussed. The court referred to previous decisions and clarified the circumstances under which appeals would be maintainable. It was established that if a Single Judge exercises jurisdiction under Article 226, a Letters Patent Appeal would be maintainable, but not if the jurisdiction is under Article 227. The court emphasized the importance of clarity in stating the jurisdiction under which a matter is decided by the Single Judge. In this case, the court found it unnecessary to examine this aspect further based on the declaration of law in previous cases.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decisions of the lower courts regarding the reinstatement of the workmen without back wages. The court found that the conclusions drawn by the Industrial Court were based on factual evidence and declined to interfere with the orders made by the lower courts.

← Previous Next →