1960 (8) TMI 80 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether there has been failure of justice in this case? Whether the civil court or the revenue court has jurisdiction the decision of the original court is allowed to stand in certain circumstances if there has been no failure of justice? Held that - Review application dismissed. This Court was not bound to decide the question of jurisdiction on the facts and circumstances of this case when it had come to the conclusion in dealing with an appeal Under Art. 136 of the Constitution that there was no failure of justice. The review application therefore fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.

Summary

Issues:
1. Review of a judgment based on alleged mistakes and errors.
2. Jurisdiction of the Payment of Wages Authority.
3. Interpretation of Art. 136 of the Constitution.
4. Consideration of provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
5. Relationship between jurisdiction and failure of justice.
6. Discretionary powers of the Supreme Court under Art. 136.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment under review was based on an application seeking a review due to alleged mistakes and errors apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner contended that the judgment dealt with the issuance of writs by High Courts under Art. 226 of the Constitution, a matter that should have been decided by a bench of not less than five judges. The Supreme Court clarified that the original judgment only decided that the Court is not bound to interfere under Art. 136 of the Constitution when there is no failure of justice, as in the present case.

2. The case involved a question of jurisdiction concerning the Payment of Wages Authority. The Supreme Court acknowledged the contention regarding the jurisdiction of the Authority but refrained from deciding the issue further, as there was no failure of justice and the matter had been considered by a higher tribunal. The Court cited a previous case to support its decision not to delve into the jurisdiction matter when there was no failure of justice.

3. The judgment clarified the interpretation of Art. 136 of the Constitution, emphasizing that the Court has discretionary powers and is not obligated to interfere in cases where there is no failure of justice. The Court highlighted that the exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 136 is discretionary and not mandatory, even if leave has been granted.

4. The petitioner argued that the Court failed to consider certain provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, which could have impacted the decision on the question of failure of justice. However, the Court concluded that even if those provisions were considered, the decision on the failure of justice would have remained the same.

5. The petitioner contended that the question of jurisdiction was essential to determine whether there was a failure of justice. The Court rejected this argument, stating that decisions of original courts and tribunals can stand even with doubts about jurisdiction if there is no failure of justice. The Court emphasized that its decision not to address the jurisdiction issue did not contravene established legal principles.

6. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its discretionary powers under Art. 136 and concluded that it was not obligated to decide the question of jurisdiction when there was no failure of justice. The review application was dismissed, emphasizing that the Court's exercise of jurisdiction is based on the circumstances of each case and the ends of justice.