2019 (9) TMI 1696 - SC - Indian Laws

Scope of Certiorari Jurisdiction - Validity of Award passed by Labour Court - whether NMR workers were entitled to payment of Hydro Allowance at revised rates? - whether NMR workers of the Rengali Unit of the Orissa Hydro Power Corporation, who were being paid medical allowance, were entitled for such allowance at revised rates? Scope of Certiorari Jurisdiction - HELD THAT - An erroneous decision in respect of a matter which falls within the authority of the Tribunal would not entitle a writ applicant for a writ of certiorari. However, if the decision relates to anything collateral to the merit, an erroneous decision upon which, would affect its jurisdiction, a writ of certiorari would lie - reliance can be placed in the case of TC. BASAPPA VERSUS T. NAGAPPA 1954 (5) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that Certiorari may lie and is generally granted when a court has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. The want of jurisdiction may arise from the nature of the subject-matter of the proceeding or from the absence of some preliminary proceeding or the court itself may not be legally constituted or suffer from certain disability by reason of extraneous circumstances. The question arose in DHARANGADHARA CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. VERSUS STATE OF SAURASHTRA 1956 (11) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT . The question was whether the finding by the Tribunal under the Act about the party Respondents being workmen was liable to be interfered with. After dealing with various tests relating to determining the issue, this Court also held that It is equally well settled that the decision of the Tribunal on a question of fact which it has jurisdiction to determine is not liable to be questioned in proceedings Under Article 226 of the Constitution unless at the least it is shown to be fully unsupported by evidence. Application u/s 33A of the Act - HELD THAT - An application Under Section 33A of the Act is not a civil suit. The provisions of Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as such, is not applicable to proceedings under the Act. Does it mean that the law as to pleadings is not to apply at all to proceedings under the Act or will it be more correct to say that the law as to pleadings will apply but without its full vigor. We would think the latter would be the correct position in law. While the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure may not apply the salutary principles embodied would apply. This is for the reason that the purpose of pleading, be it in a civil suit or other proceeding, is to allow the opposite party to meet the case of his opponent to ready the evidence to be adduced and marshal the law in support of its case. The VSS, if availed of by an employee voluntarily, amounts to a contract. This Court, in BANK OF INDIA ORS VERSUS O.P. SWARNAKAR 2002 (12) TMI 605 - SUPREME COURT , was dealing with the case of voluntary retirement scheme floated by the bank. A question arose as to whether the scheme was an offer or an invitation to treat. After elaborate consideration of the scheme, the Court took the view that having regard to the facts, in particular, the fact that the bank reserved its right to accept or reject the application, the scheme was an invitation to treat. The application made by the employee amounted to an offer and a contract emerged only if the application was accepted by the bank. It was only when the offer of the employee was accepted, it became an enforceable contract, it was held. This aspect assumes significance in the light of the fact that the concept of fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation as defined in the Contract Act, would be apposite in the context of the Scheme giving rise to an enforceable contract. Findings of the Labour Court - HELD THAT - The Labour Court found that the application Under Section 33A of the Act is maintainable. This is on the basis that, had the VSS been in the true sense, there would not have been any illegality. It is found that the applicants have challenged the Scheme as illegal and the applications were obtained by misrepresentation. On that basis, it was found that the application was maintainable - It is found that there was no demand from the applicants. There was no proposal from the officials for introduction of the Scheme. The SDO and the Executive Engineer of the Corporation never recommended for reducing staff strength. Admittedly, the Scheme was not published widely for the information of NMRs. Reference is made to the application made by AW1, which we have extracted. On this finding, the Labour Court finds that the Scheme was not the choice of the applicants but it was thrust upon the applicants. This amounted to refusal of employment in the guise of the Scheme. On this basis, the relief was granted. In the High Court, when application was made Under Section 17B of the Act, the applicants were directed to deposit the amount which they received. 28 applicants deposited the amount which they received under the Scheme. It is not disputed that the said amounts are with the Appellants - The court went on, no doubt, to consider the pay to be given to the NMR workers. The court proceeded to hold there was no reason for discriminating the NMR employees from other regular employed persons . The applicants have failed to plead and prove, and on the yardstick of it being a case of no evidence, the Award became infirm and was liable to be interfered with. At any rate, the findings, which have been rendered by the Labour Court, which is to the effect that it was not the choice of the applicants and was thrust upon the complainants amounting to refusal of employment, is completely insupportable both in law and on facts. The finding that there was no demand from the side of the complainants for the introduction of the VSS is completely irrelevant, as, as an employer, it was certainly open to devise such policy which was in the best interest of the Corporation - From the evidence which consists of the testimony of AW1 to AW4, as far as this aspect is concerned, there is no evidence at all. It is true, in the response of the Appellants, it has been pleaded in paragraph-8 that a Scheme has been displayed on the notice board and the same has been widely circulated for information of all concerned. However, the witness for the Appellants, in evidence, has deposed that the VSS was not published in any newspaper. It is stated that it is not published in any newspaper for the information of the general public. He also does say that it is not notified in the Gazette either by the Government or by the Corporation. The second witness for the Appellants also states that implementation was notified on the Office Notice Board. It was made in English and the NMRs were not conversant with English. Nothing was published in Oriya. Thus, no case was made out before the Labour Court for invoking Section 33A read with Section 33 of the Act. In the case of Writ of Certiorari, no doubt, the Court also bears in mind that it is not axiomatic, or that upon a finding of illegality, a court is bound to interfere. The court may still exercise its discretion and decline jurisdiction unless there is manifest injustice - the Appellants have made out a case of manifest injustice if the Award is allowed to stand. The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The Award passed by the Labour Court is set aside and the application filed by the applicants is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and undue influence in obtaining signatures for the Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS).
3. Scope of certiorari jurisdiction in reviewing the findings of the Labour Court.
4. Validity and implementation of the Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS).
5. Entitlement to reinstatement and back wages for the applicants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
The Labour Court found the application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act maintainable, as the applicants alleged that the VSS was thrust upon them through misrepresentation, thus constituting a violation of Section 33(1) of the Act. The core issue was whether the applications for VSS were filed voluntarily by the applicants with full knowledge of its contents and consequences.

2. Allegations of Fraud, Misrepresentation, and Undue Influence:
The applicants alleged that their signatures were obtained under the pretext of regularization but were instead used for the VSS. They claimed they were misled and that their signatures were obtained forcibly. However, the Supreme Court found that the pleadings did not sufficiently detail the fraud or undue influence. The evidence provided by the applicants was inconsistent and did not support the allegations of fraud. The Court emphasized that fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved, which was not done in this case.

3. Scope of Certiorari Jurisdiction:
The Supreme Court reiterated that certiorari jurisdiction is supervisory and not appellate. It is intended to correct jurisdictional errors or errors of law apparent on the face of the record. The Court found that the Labour Court's findings were not supported by evidence and were perverse. The Labour Court had overlooked the overwhelming evidence presented by the appellants, including the applications for VSS signed by the applicants and the payments made to them.

4. Validity and Implementation of the Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS):
The VSS was introduced to rationalize manpower and was implemented after discussions with the Workers' Union. The Scheme was circulated among the workers, and a significant number of workers opted for it voluntarily. The Supreme Court found that the VSS was validly implemented and that the applicants had voluntarily applied for it, receiving the benefits as per the Scheme.

5. Entitlement to Reinstatement and Back Wages:
The Labour Court had directed reinstatement with 70% back wages, finding that the VSS was thrust upon the applicants. However, the Supreme Court set aside this finding, holding that the applicants had voluntarily accepted the VSS and received the benefits. Therefore, they were not entitled to reinstatement or back wages. The Court also directed the return of amounts deposited by 28 applicants with interest.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and quashed the Award passed by the Labour Court. The application filed by the applicants under Section 33A was dismissed. The appellants were directed to return the amounts deposited by 28 applicants with interest within two months. There was no order as to costs.