M/S ATLAS CYCLE (HARYANA) LTD.versusKITAB SINGH

                     [2013] 1 S.C.R. 611

            MIS ATLAS CYCLE (HARYANA) LTD.                         A
                                v.
                         KITAB SINGH
                (Civil Appeal No. 673 of 2013)
                      JANUARY 24, 2013                              B
 [P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.]

     CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950:

      Arts. 226 and 227 - Jurisdiction of High Court - Writ of C
certiorari - High Court setting aside the award ofLabour Court
and directing reinstatement of workman with 25% back wages
- Held: It is settled law that when Labour Court arrived at a
finding overlooking the materials on record, it wou/9 amount
to perversity and writ Court would be fully justified in interfering o
with the said conclusion - If a finding of fact is based on no
evidence that would be regarded as an error of law which can
be corrected by a writ of certiorari - In the instant case, the
issue whether resignation of workman was voluntary and the
factum of complaint sent by him immediately were not · E
adverted to by Labour Court - High Court thoroughly analyzed
all the aspects and arrived at the correct conclusion - Labour
law.

     The respondent-workman, who was employed by the
appellant company on piece rate basis in the year 1977, F
wrote a letter to the Chief Minister on 7.10.1992, stating
that on 30.9.1992 in the evening he was beaten up, given
electric shock and was forced to write a resignation letter,
on the allegation that he committed a theft of the goods
of the factory and on the morning of 1.10.1992 when he G
went to the factory, he was not allowed to enter. The
workman also sent a notice dated 13.10.1992 to the
appellant company. The Reference made to the Labour
Court was dismissed. However, the single Judge of the
                           611                               H
    612      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013] 1 S.C.R.

A   High Court, in the writ petition filed by the workman, set
    aside the award and directed his reinstatement with 25%
    back wages. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the
    Company was dismissed.

B         Dismissing the appeal, the Court

        HELD: 1.1. Whether the complaint was sent by the
  .workman on 07.10.1992 and the resignation tendered by
   him on 01.10.1992 was voluntary or not have not been
   adverted to by the Labour Court. These are the real
C Issues In the case. As rightly observed by the Division
   Bench of the High Court, there are contradictory findings
   by the Labour Court with regard to the claim of the
   workman that he was tortured by the Management on
   30.09.1992 and was made to write the resignation letter
D on 01.10.1992. Again, It was rlghtly observed by the
   Division Bench that certain relevant facts such as the
   workman had been In service since 1977 and In such
   circumstance whether there Is any need to resign without
   any acceptable reason that too without any monetary
E Incentive and, further, the complaint on the same day to
   the Management and higher authorities Including the
   Chief Minister, were not at all considered by the Labour
   Court and It merely accepted that the workman tendered
   the resignation In his own writing. [para 9) [620·F·H: 621·
F A·B]
        1.2. This Court Is satisfied that the single Judge of
  the High Court thoroughly analysed all the aspects and
  arrived at a correct conclusion. It Is settled law that when
  the Labour Court arrived at a finding overlooking the
G materials on record, It would amount to perversity and the
  writ Court would be fully justified In Interfering with the
  said concluslon. It Is true that the High Court exercising
  writ jurisdiction would not assume the role of the appellate
  court, however, the High Court Is well within Its power to
H Interfere If It Is shown that In recording the said finding,
   ATLAS CYCLE (HARYANA) LTD. v. KITAB SINGH             613

the Tribunal/Labour Court had erroneously refused to A
admit the admissible and material evidence, or had
erroneously admitted any inadmissible evidence which
has influenced the impugned finding. If a finding of fact
is based oo no evidence that would be regarded as an
error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. B
[para 11] [621-C-F]

    Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. 2003 (2)
Suppl.· SCR 290 = (2003) 6 SCC 675 - relied on

     1.3. On going through the entire reasoning of the C
Labour Court, materials placed and stand taken by the
workman and the Management, this Court is satisfied that
the single Judge of the High Court was fully justified in
interfering with the conclusion arrived at by the Labour
Court which has been rightly affirmed by the Division D
Bench. [para 12] [621-F-G]
                    Case Law Reference:
    2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 290         relied on      para 7
                                                                E
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 673
Of 2013.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 04.10.2008 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 48 of 2008.                                          F

    Raj Kumar Mehta, Antaryami Upadhyay, Rajeev Ranjan
Pathak for the Appellant.

    S.N. Bhat for the Respondent.
                                                                G
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave. granted.

    2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and   H
      614       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 1 S.C.R.


  order dated 04.10.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab
.A.
  & Haryana at Chandigarh in Letters Patent Appeal No. 48 of
  2008 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed
  the appeal filed by the appellant-Company herein and confirmed
  the order of the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition
B No.11450 of 1995.

            3. Brief facts:

        (a) In the year 1977, Kitab Singh - respondent herein was
  employed by the appellant-Company on piece rate basis in the
C Packing Department. On 28.11.1988, respondent was charge-
  sheeted for committing theft of goods belonging to the
  appellant-Company for which a written explanation dated
  12.10.1989 was submitted by the respondent seeking pardon
  and assuring that he would not indulge in any such misconduct
D in future. This was accepted by the appellant-Company.
            (b) On 01.10.1992, respondent submitted his resignation
      citing domestic circumstances and the appellant-Company
      accepted the resignation on the same day.
E      (c) On 07.10.1992, respondent wrote a letter to the Chief
  Minister of Haryana, leveling certain allegations against the
  management of the appellant-Company. In that letter, he
  alleged that on 30.09.1992, in the evening after finishing his
  duty, when he went to the puncture shop outside the factory to
F collect his scooter, which he had left in the morning, the security
  guard accused him of taking stolen goods in a bag. He further
  alleged that he was beaten up, given electric shock and forced
  to write the resignation letter and thereafter, left him in his home
  in an unconscious condition. It was further stated in that letter
G that when the respondent had gone to the factory in the morning
  of 01.10.1992, he was not allowed to enter.
      (d) Respondent sent a notice dated 13.10.1992 to the
  appellant··Company stating that when he went to attend duty on
H 01.10.1992, the security officer refused to enter him and he had
  ATLAS CYCLE (HARYANA) LTD. v. KITAB SINGH                   615
             [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
not been given compensation under Section 25-F of the                 A
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act") and that he should be reinstated with continuity of service.

     (e) The State Government, vide letter dated 11.01.1993,
rejected his request for a Reference on the ground that he
                                                                      8
himself had resigned from the job after submitting resignation.

      (f) Aggrieved by the said reply, respondent filed a Writ
Petition being CWP No. 10642 of 1993 before the High Court
praying for referring the dispute to the Labour Court. The High
Court allowed the same with a direction to the State C
Government to ·refer the matter to the Labour Court for
adjudication.

     (g) On 21.04.1994, respondent filed a Claim Statement
before the Labour Court alleging that he had not resigned and 0
that he should be ordered to be reinstated on duty with
continuity of service and back wages.

     (h) Appellant-Company filed a written statement stating,
inter alia, that respondent is not entitled to any relief by way of
re-instatement or by way of back wages as he himself resigned         E
from the service.

    (i) The Labour Court, by order dated 02.02.2005,
dismissed the Reference and the Claim Statement of the
respondent.                                                           F

     0) Aggrieved by the said order, on 07.08.1995, respondent
filed a Petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 11450 of 1995
before the High Court. Learned single Judge, by order dated
09;01.2008 set aside the Award of the Labour Court and
directed the appellant-Company to reinstate the respondent in G
service with 25% back wages.

    (k) Not satisfied with the order of learned single Judge, on
07.02.2008, the appellant-Company filed a Letters Patent                  ...
Appeal No. 48 of 2008 before the Division Bench of the High           H
    616     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 1 S.C.R.


A   Court. By judgment dated 04.10.2008, the Division Bench
    dismissed the said Appeal.

        (I) Being aggrieved, the appellant-Company preferred this
    appeal by way of special leave.
B       4. We heard Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the
    appellant-Company and Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the
    respondent-workman.

         5. The only question that was posed and discussed before
c   the learned single Judge of the High Court was as to whether
    the workman had voluntarily resigned on 01.10.1992, as
    claimed by the Management or was he forced to resign on
    30.09.1992 as alleged by the workman? After finding that had
    the workman resigned voluntarily on 01.10.1992, he would not
o   have complained to the Management on that very day and run
    from pillar to post, by making various complaints to higher
    authorities, including the Chief Minister of the State and if the
    workman had committed any misconduct like theft etc., the
    Management could have held a domestic inquiry and taken a
E   suitable action as per law, the single Judge ultimately concluded
    that the workman was retrenched from employment without
    complying with Section 25-F of the Act.

       6. Before the Division Bench of the High Court, the
  Management raised a question relating to the scope of
F interference by a writ Court in a finding of fact rendered by a
  Tribunal/Labour Court. It was urged by the Management that the
  Labour Court, having arrived at a firm finding that the workman
  was never tortured or that the story of forcible resignation
  claimed by him was unreliable, the learned single Judge ought
G not to have interfered with the same in exercise of his
  extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
  Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the Management
  further contended that in no circumstance, a direction for
  reinstatement of the workman in service is warranted,
H particularly when having regard to his misconduct, the
  ATLAS CYCLE (HARYANA) LTD. v. KITAB SINGH                     617
             [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

Management had completely lost confidence in the workman.              A
On the other hand, learned counsel for the workman contended
that when the findings rendered by the Labour Court are
contrary to the material evidence on record, it shall amount to
perversity and the writ Court is fully justified in interfering with
the same. On going through the entire materials, the Division          B
Bench accepted the stand of the workman and confirmed the
order passed by the learned single Judge.

    7. Similar contentions as raised before the single Judge
and the Division Bench of the High Court were raised before            C
us by both the parties.

      8. Before considering the merits of the claim of both the
parties, it is useful to refer the jurisdiction of the High Court
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. After
adverting to earlier decisions, this Court in Surya Dev Rai vs.        D
Ram Chander Rai & Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 675 summarized
various circumstances under which the High Court can exercise
its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
which are as under:
                                                                       f
            "38. Such like matters frequently arise before the
      High Courts. We sum up our conclusions in a nutshell, even
    . at the risk of repetition and state the same as hereunder:

           (1) Amendment by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from
     1-7-2002 in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure            F
     cannot and does not affect in any manner the jurisdiction
     of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
     Constitution.

           (2) Interlocutory orders, passed by the courts              G
    subordinate to the High Court, against which remedy of
    revision has been excluded by CPC Amendment Act 46
    of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and
    continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory
    jurisdiction of the High Court.                                    H
    618        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2013] 1 S.C.R.


A                (3) Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution,
          is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction i.e. when
          a subordinate court is found to have acted (i) without
          jurisdiction - by assuming jurisdiction where there exists
          none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction - by overstepping
B         or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant
          disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in
          violation of principles of natural justice where there is no
          procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of
          justice.
c               (4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
          Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate
          courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a
          subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does
          not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it
D         does have or the jurisdiction though available is being
          exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law
          and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned
          thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its
          supervisory jurisdiction.
E
                 (5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of
          supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere
          errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements
          are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the
F         face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear
          ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and
          (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has
          occasioned thereby.
                (6) A patent error is an error which is self-evident i.e.
G         which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving
          into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn
          process of reasoning. Where two inferences are
          reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen
          to take one view, the error cannot be called gross or
H         patent.
ATLAS CYCLE (HARYANA) LTD. v. KITAB SINGH                    619
           [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
        (7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the          A
 supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and
 only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of
 the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice
 or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and
 circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the                8
 abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during
 the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate
 court and the error though calling for correction is yet
 capable of being corrected· at the conclusion of the
 proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred                      C
 thereagainst and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari
 or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court would obstruct
 the ~mooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or
 proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene
 where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very
 moment, may become incapable of correction at a later               0
 stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of
 justice or where such refusal itself would result in
 prolonging of the lis.
       (8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or               E
 supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of
 appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of
 evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct
 errors of mere formal or technical character.
        (9) In practice, the parameters for exerc,:ising F
 jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those calling for
 exercise of supervisory jurisdiction are almost similar and
 the width of jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in
  India unlike English courts has almost obliterated the
 distinction between the two jurisdictions. While exercising G
 jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari, the High Court may
 annul or set aside the act, order or proceedings of the
 subordinate courts but cannot substitute its own decision.
 in place thereof. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the
 High Court may not only give suitable directions so as to H
    620       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 1 S.C.R.


A         guide the subordinate court as to the manner in which it
          would act or proceed thereafter or afresh, the High Court
          may in appropriate cases itself make an order in
          supersession or substitution of the order of the subordinate
          court as the court should have made in the facts and
B         circumstances of the case."
        In the light of the above principles, while reiterating the
    same, we have to consider whether the High Court has
    exceeded its power as claimed by the learned counsel for the
    appellant?
C         9. It is relevant to note that in order to find out the
    correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge, ·
    the Division Bench summoned all the records of the Labour
    Court and perused the same. In the written claim before the
    Labour Court, the workman has specifically alleged that on
D   01.10.1992, he sent a notice~cum-application to the
    Management and a news item to this effect was duly published
    in a vernacular local daily. This factual aspect and version,
    particularly the receipt of notice-cum-application dated
    01.10.1992 from the workman, has not been denied in the
E   written statement filed by the Management. The main emphasis
    in the written statement of the Management was that the .
    workman had voluntarily tendered his resignation on
    01.10.1992. It is brought to our notice that the Labour-cum-
    Conciliation Officer has not disputed the important fact that the
F   workman protested in writing on the very next day of the
    incident. Whether the complaint sent by the workman on
    07.10.1992 and the resignation tendered by him on 01.10.1992
    was voluntary or not have not been adverted to by the Labour
    Court. According to us, these are the real issues in this case.
G   As rightly observed by the Division Bench, we also noticed
    contradictory findings by the Labour Court with regard to the
    claim of the workman that he was tortured by the Management
    on 30.09.1992 and was made to write the resignation letter on
    01.10.1992. Again, it was rightly observed by the Division
H   Bench that certain relevant facts such as workman had been
  ATLAS CYCLE {HARYANA) LTD. v. KITAB SINGH                    621
             [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
in service since 1977 and in such circumstance whether there A
is any need to resign without any acceptable reason that too
without any monetary incentive and complaint on the same day
to the Management and higher authorities including the Chief
Minister, were not at all considered by the Labour Court and
merely accepted that the workm.an tendered the resignation in B
his own writing.
      10. Even the claim of theft in the year 1988 by the workman
has not been specifically raised in the written statement before
the Labour Court and raised for the first time only before the
writ Court.                                                            C
      11. We are satisfied that the learned single Judge
thoroughly analysed all the aspects and arrived at a correct
conclusion. It is settled law that when the Labour Court arrived
at a finding overlooking the materials on record, it would amount
to perversity and the writ Court would be fully justified in           D
interfering with the said conclusion. We are conscious of the
fact that the High Court exercising writ of certiorari would not
permit to assume the role of the appellate Court, however, the
Court is well within its power to interfere if it is shown that in
recording the said finding, the Tribunal/Labour Court had              E
erroneously refused to admit the admissible and material
evidence, or had erroneously admitted any inadmissible
evidence which has influenced the impugned finding, the writ
Court would be justified in exercising its remedy. In other words,
if a finding of fact is based on no evidence that would be             F
regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ
of certiorari.
    . 12. On going through the entire reasoning of the Labour
Court, materials placed and stand taken by the workman and
the Management, we are satisfied that the learned single Judge         G
was fully justified in interfering with the conclusion arrived at by
the Labour Court which has been rightly affirmed by the Division
Bench. Consequently, the appeal of the Management fails and
the same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-.
R.P.                                          Appeal dismissed.        H