Market Committee Khanna Ludhiana Th Its Secretary and Ors v. The President/General Secretary Punjab Sannati Mazdoor Sangthan and Ors

INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABo&oHARYANAo AToCHANDIGARH **** CWP-14436-2016 ndDateoofoDecision:o22 oDecember,o2023 MarketoCommittee,oKhanna,oLudhianaoandoanother o.....oPetitioners Versus TheoPresident/GeneraloSecretary,oPunjaboSannatioMazdooroSangthan, Ludhianaoandoanother ooooo.....oRespondents CORAM:oHON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoHARSHoBUNGER Present: Mr.oParambiroSingh,oAdvocate forotheopetitioners. Mr.oSharwanoSehgal,oAdvocate fororespondentoNo.1. ***** HARSHoBUNGERoJ.o(ORAL)

¶1PresentowritopetitionohasobeenofiledounderoArticleso226/227oof theoConstitutionoofoIndiaoseekingosettingoaside oofoimpugnedoawardodated

09.03.2016o(AnnexureoP-8)opassedobyotheoPresidingoOfficer,oIndustrial Tribunal,oLudhianao(hereinafteroreferredotooaso'theoTribunal'),owhereby resolutionodatedo12.07.1993oandoorderodatedo06.08.1992ohaveobeenosetoaside andotheoworkmano(ShrioRam)oisoheldoentitledotooretirementobenefitsoby countingohisoserviceorenderedofromo15.07.1964otoo12.07.1993oalso.oItowas furtheroorderedothatotheoworkmano(ShrioRam)oshallonotobeoentitledotooany monetaryobenefitsoduringotheoperiodowhenoheoremainedounderosuspension, exceptotheosubsistenceoallowance. Aofurtheroprayerohasobeenomadeotoostayotheooperationoof impugnedoawardodatedo09.03.2016o(AnnexureoP-8)oduringopendencyoofothe instantowritopetition.

¶2Briefly,orespondentoNo.1o–oPunjabooSannatioMazdooroSangthan, Ludhianao raisedoanoindustrialodisputeobyoraisingodemandonoticeodated

19.04.2005oupono theo Chairman, oPunjab o Mandi o Board o asowell oas othe Secretary,oMarketoCommittee,oKhanna,oDistrictoLuhiana.oAsoperotheodemand notice,o workman-Shri o Ramo was o appointed o as o ao Peon o byo theo Market Comittee,oKhannaoono08.07.1965oandowasopromotedoasoMoharrirow.e.f.

01.06.1967;othereafteroheowasopromotedoasoMandioSupervisor-cum-Fee CollectorobyotheoMarketoCommittee,oKhannaow.e.f.o31.05.1972.oItoappears thatoono20.11.1988,owhileoworkingoasoMandioSupervisor-cum-FeeoCollector, ShrioRamowasoimplicatedoinoaocriminalocaseobearingoFIRoNo.200odated

20.11.1980 o under o Sections o409 o and o 467o of o the o Indian o Penal o Code. Thereafter,oShrioRamowasoplacedounderosuspensionovideoresolutionodated

15.02.1980o byotheo Market oCommitee, oKhanna;o ando lateroon,o heowas reinstatedopendingoinquiryoinotheoyearo1983.oTheoworkman-ShrioRamofaced trialoinotheoaforesaidocaseounderotwoodifferentochallansobeforeotheotrialoCourt andowasoconvictedoandosentencedounderoSectiono409oofotheoIndianoPenal Codeovideojudgmentsodatedo26.02.1990;oandoheowasoagainoplacedounder suspension.oItoisoborneooutofromotheopaperobookothatoShrioRamopreferredotwo criminaloappealsoagainstotheoaforesaidojudgmentsodatedo26.02.1990,obefore theoAdditionaloDistrictoJudge,oLudhiana,owherebyosentenceoimposedoupon himowasoreducedotoooneoyearooforigorousoimprisonmentovideojudgmentodated

06.11.1990.oThereafteroworkman-ShrioRamofiledotwoocriminalorevision petitionsobeforeothisoCourt,owhichowereodecidedovideotwooseparateojudgments datedo26.04.1991,owhereinotheoconvictionoofoShrioRamowasoconfirmed, however,ohisosentenceowasoreducedotootheoalreadyoundergone.oFurther,oit appearsothatoShrioRamowasoreinstatedoinoserviceoono12.07.1993oasoMandi Supervisor-cum-FeeoCollectorobyotheoMarketoCommittee,oKhannaoandohe wasoallowedotoojoinohisodutyouponosubmittingohisojoiningoreportodated

12.07.1993.oThereafter,oShrioRamoretiredofromoserviceoono30.04.2001oafter attainingotheoageoofosuperannuation.

¶3ItoisomanifestothatoShrioRamofiledoanoappealodatedo25.08.2003 beforeotheoChairman,oPunjaboMandioBoard,oChandigarhoagainstoorderodated

12.07.1993opassedobyotheoMarketoCommittee,oKhanna,otherebyodenying continuityo ofo serviceo rendered o by o theo workman-Shri o Ram o beforeo his reinstatement,ohowever,oitoappearsothatotheosaidoappealowasorejectedovide orderodatedo21.03.2004.oSubsequently,orespondentoNo.1o–oPunjaboSannati MazdooroSangthan,oLudhianaoraisedoanoindustrialodisputeobyoservingodemand noticeodatedo18.04.2005,owhereinoaodemandowasoraisedotoocountotheoentire serviceoofoShrioRamoinotheoemployment,ow.e.f.o08.07.1965otillohisoretirement, andothatoheobeopaidoalloarrearsoandoretiralobenefitsowithoarrearso@o18% interestoalongowithoallotheoconsequentialobenefits.

¶4The o aforesaid o claim o of o Shri o Ram o was o contested o by o the petitionersohereinoonotheovariousopleasowhichocanobeosummarisedoasounder:-

(I) The oPunjab o Sannati o Mazdoor o Sangthan, o Ludhianao was o not competent/authorizedotooespouseotheocauseoofoworkman-ShrioRam.

(II)oTheoclaimoraisedobyotheoUnionoonobehalfoofotheoconcernedoworkman wasostale,ohighlyobelatedoandoanoafterthought.

(III)oOnoaccountoofoconvictionoofoworkman-ShrioRamounderoSectiono409 ofotheoIndianoPenaloCode,oheowasoliableotoobeodismissedofromoservice andocouldonotobeoreinstatedoinoserviceoasoperotheoRules.

(IV)oMarketoCommittee,oKhannaoallowedotheoworkman-ShrioRamotoojoin his o duties o as o Mandi o Supervisor-cum-Fee o Collector o in o terms o of ResolutionoNo.9odatedo12.07.1993,owhereinoitowasomadeoclearothatothe concernedoworkmanoshallonotobeoentitledotooanyobenefitoofohisopast serviceopriorotootheodateoofohisorejoiningotheoMarketoCommittee, Khanna.

(V)o Thatouponotheoconvictionoofoworkman-ShrioRam,owithoregardoto misappropriationoofofundsoofotheoMarketoCommittee,oKhanna,owas upheldobyotheoHon'bleoHighoCourt,ohisoconductowasoprovedoandoheowas neitheroentitledotooanyoshowocauseonoticeonoroanyocharge-sheetowas requiredotoobeoservedonoroanyoregularodepartmentaloenquiryoinorespect ofoconcernedoworkman/employeeowasoessentialobeforeopassingoof resolutionodatedo12.07.1993.

(VI)oNooprejudiceowasocausedotootheoconcernedoemployeeowithonon-grant ofoopportunityoofopersonalohearingobeforeopassingoofotheoresolution datedo12.07.1993.

(VII)o Concernedoemployeeoisonotoentitledotootheoretiralobenefits,olike pension,ocommutationoofopension,oD.C.R.G.oandoleaveoencashment, etc. Withotheoaforesaidopleas,oitowasoprayedothatotheoclaimoof workman-ShrioRamobeorejected.

¶5Onotheobasisoofopleadingsoandomaterial/evidenceoavailableoon record,otheoTribunalobelowodecidedotheoreferenceobyoitsoawardodated

09.03.2016o(AnnexureoP-8)obyosettingoasideoresolutionodatedo12.07.1993oand orderodatedo06.08.1992oandofurtheroheldothatoworkman-ShrioRamowas entitledoto oretirement obenefits obyo counting ohis oserviceorendered ofrom

15.07.1964otoo12.07.1993,oasowell. Beingoaggrievedoagainstotheoaforesaidoawardodatedo09.03.2016 (AnnexureoP-8),opetitionersofiledotheoinstantowritopetitionobeforeothisoCourt.

¶6Learnedocounseloforotheopetitioners,obyoreiteratingoitsoobjections raisedobeforeotheoTribunalobelow,osubmitsothatotheoTribunalohasoerredoinolaw andofactoinoacceptingotheoclaimoinorespectoofotheoworkman-ShrioRam,owithout takingonoteoofotheofactothatotheoUnionohadonooauthorityotooespouseotheocause ofoworkman-ShrioRam.oItoisosubmittedothatoworkman-ShrioRamowasoworking as o a o Mandi o Supervisor-cum-Fee o Collector o and o he o performed o various administrative/managerial/supervisory o duties o like o collection o of o fees, accounts o checking o of o dealers o when o authorised o by o Secretary, o Mandi inspection,oenforcementoofotheoAct,oRulesoandoBye-Laws,osupervisingothe auction,oweighmentoandomarketotransactions,oIn-chargeoofotheoworkoinothe marketoareaoandoseasonaloarrangement.oLearnedocounseloforotheopetitioners furtherosubmitsothatotheoTribunalobelowohasowronglyoentertainedoandodecided theoclaimoofoworkman-ShrioRamodespiteotheofactothatotheosameowasostaleoand highlyobelated. With o the o aforesaid o submissions, o learned o counsel o for o the petitionersohasoprayedoforoallowingotheoinstantowritopetitionobyosettingoaside awardodatedo09.03.2016o(AnnexureoP-8)opassedobyotheoTribunal.

¶7Perocontra,olearnedocounselofororespondentoNo.1ohasoopposedothe prayeromadeobyolearnedocounseloforotheopetitionersobyosubmittingothatothe Tribunalobelowohasopassedoaodetailed,owelloreasonedoandojustifiedoorder, whichodoesonotocalloforoanyointerferenceobyothisoCourtowhileoexercisingoits limitedocertiorariojurisdiction.oItoisofurtherosubmittedothatotheoTribunalobelow hasoreturnedotheofindingsowhichoareoinoconsonanceowithotheoevidenceoasowell asotheolawoonoissue;oandotheosameodoonotocalloforoanyointerferenceobyothis Court.oAccordingly, olearnedocounselofororespondentoNo.1ohasoprayedofor dismissaloofotheoinstantowritopetition.

¶8Iohaveoheardolearnedocounseloforotheopartiesoandoperusedothe paperobookowithotheiroableoassistance.

¶9Inotheoinstantocase,otheoTribunalobelowohasoreturnedotheofindings thatofromotheoevidenceoonorecord,oitoisomadeooutothatoworkman-ShrioRamowas neverodismissedoororemovedofromoserviceoonoaccountoofohisoinvolvementoin theocriminalocaseoratheroheowasosuspendedoono15.02.1980oandothereafter,ohe wasoreinstated,opendingoenquiry,ovideoorderodatedo09.02.1983.oItoisofurther statedothatouponoconviction,oworkman-ShrioRamowasoagainosuspendedoon

02.03.1990oandoafterohisosentenceowasoreducedobyothisoCourt,oheowasoagain reinstatedoono12.07.1993.oAccordingly,oaofindingohasobeenoreturnedobyothe Tribunalothatonooinquiryowasoheldoagainstoworkman-ShrioRamoandothereois neitheroanyoorderonororesolutionoofotheoDepartmentowithoregardotooremovaloor dismissal o of o workman-Shri o Ram o from o service o at o any o time o prior o to

12.07.1993odueotoohisoconvictionoinoaocriminalocase;otherefore,oitocannotobe saidothatoworkman-ShrioRamorejoinedoono12.07.1993oasofreshoappointment, moreosoowhenonooorderowasopassedoregardingohisoremovaloorodismissalofrom service.oConsequently,otheoTribunaloheldothatotheoserviceorenderedoby workman-ShrioRamofromo15.07.1964otoo12.07.1993oisotoobeocountedofor grantooforetiralobenefitsotoohim. AsoregardsotootheoobjectionothatoUnionooisonotocompetentotooraise industrialodisputeoasoregardsotheoworkman-ShrioRam,oitohasobeenoheldothat oneoShrioSwaranoSingho(officialoofotheoOfficeoofoLabour-cum-Conciliation, Ludhiana)owasoexaminedoasoWW-1,owhoohadobroughtoonorecordoDemand Noticeodatedo19.04.2005o(Ex.W-1)oissuedobyotheoUnionoandoalsoocopyoof resolutionodatedo18.04.2005o(Ex.W-2)oofotheoPunjaboSannatioMazdoor Sangthan,owhereinoUnionohadoresolvedotooraiseoanoindustrialodisputeoon behalfoofotheoworkman.oFurtheroEx.W-4oandoW-5,obeingoreportsoofothe AssistantoLabouroCommissioner,oLudhiana,owereoalsooplacedoonorecordoand workman-ShrioRamoexaminedohimselfoasoWW-2,oinosupportoofohisoclaim. Accordingly,otheoTribunaloheldothatoworkman-ShrioRamowasoaomemberoof Union,owhichohadoraisedoindustrialodisputeoonohisobehalf,oaccordingly,othe referenceowasomaintainable. Asoregardsotheopleaothatoworkman-ShrioRamowasoworking as o a o Mandi o Supervisor-cum-Fee o Collector o and o was o performing o the administrative/managerial/supervisoryoduties,ohence,oheowasonotocovered underotheodefinitionoofo'workman'ounderoSectiono2(s)oofotheoIndustrial DisputesoAct,o1947o(hereinafterotoobeoreferredoaso'theo1947oAct'),oitohasobeen heldobyotheoTribunalothatothereoisonothingoonorecordotooshowothatoworkman-ShrioRamowasoperformingoanyoadministrative/managerial/supervisoryoduties; andohisomainodutyowasoofofeeocollection,otherefore,oheowasoao'workman'oas definedounderoSectiono2(s)oofotheo1947oAct. Learnedocounseloforotheopetitionersohasofailedotoopointooutoany fact/material/documentowhichohasonotobeenoconsideredobyoTribunalobelowoin returningotheoaforesaidofindings.oPetitioners'ocounselohasoalsoonotobeenoable toodislodgeotheosaidofindings.oInomyoconsideredoview,otheofindingsoof TribunalobelowoareobasedouponoevidenceoplacedobeforeoitoandoIodoonotofind anyoillegalityooroperversityoinotheosame.

¶10Still o further, o the o Tribunal o below, o while o considering o the objectionoraisedobyotheopetitionersohereinothatoclaimoraisedoonobehalfoof workman-ShrioRamowasoaostaleoone,ohasoheldothatoifotheoemployerohadoany grievanceothatotheoworkmanoraisedoaostaleoclaimothenotheoemployeroshould ha&eochallen!edotheore'erenceobyo(ayoo'oao(rito#etitionotoocontendothatothe claimo(asobelatedoandothereo(asonooindustrialodis#ute.oTheoa'oresaid obser&ationsomadeobyotheo Tribunalobelo(oisoinoconsonanceo(itho the jud!mentsorenderedobyotheoFon9bleoSu#remeoCourtoo'o/ndiaoin o"Karan SinghoVs.oM/soExecutiveoEngineeroHaryanaoStateoMarketingoBoard", 2 !"#$oS%&o'2(oando").*.oStateoE+ectricityoBoardoVs.o,a-eshoKu.ar", 2 /"#$oS%&o#0/. **. @urther,othe parameters for exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226o of the Constitution of India, in cases involving challenge to the award passed by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal and orders passed by other judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, are well defined. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or Tribunals. A writ can also be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or the Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, i.e. it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order or where the procedure adopted by it is opposed to the principles of natural justice. However, it must be remembered that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and not appellate one. This necessarily means that the finding of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal, as a result of the appreciation of evidence, cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings except when the judgment, order or award suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. This is the abstract statement of law, but the vexed question is as to what is an error of law apparent on the face of the record and in what circumstances a finding of fact recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal or a quasi-judicial authority can be corrected. Broadly speaking, an error of law is one which can be discovered on a bare reading of the judgment, order or award under challenge along with the documents which have been relied upon by the inferior Court, Tribunal or quasi-judicial authority. An error, the discovery of which is possible only after a detailed scrutiny of the evidence produced by the parties and lengthy debate at the bar cannot be regarded as an error of law for the purpose of a writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal can be corrected only if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Court or the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence and the same has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, a finding of fact based on no evidence would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. However, sufficiency or adequacy of the evidence relied upon by the inferior Court or Tribunal or the quasi-judicial authority cannot be gone into by the High Court while considering the prayer for issue of a writ of certiorari. Likewise, the mere, possibility of forming a different opinion on re-appreciation of evidence by the parties is not sufficient for issue of a writ of certiorario"Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 477"; "Shaikh Mahammad Umarsaheb v. Kadalaskar Hasham Karimsab and others, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 61"; "Jitendra Singh Rathor v. Sh. Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. and another, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 976"; "R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab and others, 1999(4) RCR (Civil) 253 (SC) : J.T. 1999(6) S.C. 507"o and "Mohd. Shahnawaz Akhtar and another v. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi and others, J.T. 2002(8) S.C. 69".

¶12Keepingoinoviewotheototalityoofofactsoandocircumstances,oIoamoof theoconsideredoviewothatotheoTribunalohasoreturnedotheofindingsobyocorrectly appreciating o the o material/evidence o available o on o record o in o the o right perspectiveoandoinonooway,otheoimpugnedoawardoinoquestionocanobeoheldoas perverseooroagainstotheoevidence.oAccordingly,oIodoonotofindoanyomeritoinothe instantowritopetitionoandotheosameoisodismissed.

¶13Allopendingoapplication(s),oifoany,oshalloalsoostandoclosed. nd22 oDecember,o2023 o(HARSHoBUNGER) Apurva oooooooooooJUDGE

1.oWhetherospeaking/reasoned : Yes/No

2.oWhetheroreportable : Yes/No