9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Industrial Tribunal's award 2. Existence and terms of an agreement between management and workmen 3. Denial of opportunity to prove the case 4. Effect of Supreme Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Industrial Tribunal's Award: The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to set aside the Industrial Tribunal's award dated 25 July 1957. The Tribunal had directed compensation for the loss of store purchase quotas above Rs. 13 based on a specific formula. The Tribunal's award was challenged on the grounds that it denied the petitioner a real and effective opportunity to prove its case, particularly regarding the method of evaluation of the loss. 2. Existence and Terms of an Agreement Between Management and Workmen: The petitioner claimed that an agreement had been reached before the conciliation officer regarding the method of evaluating the loss of store purchase quotas and the rates of compensation. The Tribunal found no agreement on the method of evaluation but acknowledged an agreement on the compensation rates. The Tribunal's award was based on the lack of an agreement on the evaluation method, leading to a flat rate of Rs. 3-8-0 per quota rupee. 3. Denial of Opportunity to Prove the Case: The petitioner argued that the Tribunal denied it the opportunity to prove the existence and terms of the alleged agreement by refusing to examine the conciliation officer. The High Court found that the petitioner was not given a real and effective opportunity to prove its case, which vitiated the Tribunal's finding that there was no agreement on the method of evaluation. 4. Effect of Supreme Court's Refusal to Grant Leave to Appeal: The petitioner had previously sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, which was denied. The High Court considered whether this refusal should bar the petitioner from seeking relief under Article 226. The Court noted that the refusal of leave did not imply a merger of the Tribunal's award with a Supreme Court decision, as there was no appeal. The High Court also emphasized that the jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should be exercised along recognized lines, including considering whether substantial injustice has occurred. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that despite the findings that the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to prove its case, it would not be a proper exercise of discretion to set aside the Tribunal's award after the Supreme Court had refused leave to appeal. Consequently, the rule nisi was discharged, and the petition was dismissed without costs.
|
