2002 (10) TMI 789 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
2. Calculation of 240 days of service for the purpose of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
3. High Court's interference with the Labour Court's findings.

Summary:

Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the exercise of jurisdiction u/s Article 227 of the Constitution is "limited and restrictive in nature." It is primarily used for correcting "errors of law, perverse findings, and gross violation of natural justice." The Court reiterated that this jurisdiction is not appellate but supervisory, meant to keep inferior courts within their bounds. The Court cited previous judgments, including Nibaran Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu and Mani Nariman Daruwala v. Phiroz N. Bhatena, to affirm this principle.

Calculation of 240 days of service for the purpose of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act:
The main issue was whether the Respondent-workman had completed 240 days of service, as required by Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court found that the workman had not completed 240 days, based on his own admission and evidence. The High Court, however, reappreciated the evidence and concluded that the workman had completed 240 days, relying on the precedent set in Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation. The Supreme Court noted that the burden of proof lies on the employee to show that he has worked for 240 days, as stated in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani.

High Court's interference with the Labour Court's findings:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction u/s Article 227 by reappreciating the evidence and overturning the Labour Court's findings without proving them to be perverse. The Labour Court had thoroughly examined the evidence and concluded that the workman had not completed 240 days. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a "manifest error" in reversing this order.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the Labour Court's decision. The Court reiterated the limited scope of jurisdiction u/s Article 227 and emphasized the burden of proof on the employee to demonstrate 240 days of service for the application of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.