STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPURversusOM PRAKASH SHARMA

              STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR                                  A
                                      v.
                        OM PRAKASH SHARMA

                              MAY 12, 2006

         [S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.]                             B

     Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

     Labour Court-Award given beyond terms of reference-Effect a/-
Termination of services of workman and employment of another person in          c
his place-Reference made to Labour Court on issue of violation of s. 25-
H-Labour Court holding that there was no violation of s.25-H, but r. 77
was found to have been violated-Reinstatement ordered-Held, award of
Labour Court suffers from illegality-Jn case of violation ofr. 77 on the part
of Management, it could have been subjected to penalty as provided in r. 79
but it would not entitle the workman to be reinstated-Industrial Dispute
                                                                                D
Rules-rr. 77 and 79.

     Constitution of India, 1950:

        Articles 226 and 227-Jurisdiction under-Award of Labour Court           E
going beyond terms of reference-Held, while passing the award if Labour
Court exceeds its jurisdiction, the award must /;Je held to be suffering from
jurisdictional error and is liable to be corrected by High Court in exercise
 of its power ofjudicial review-High Court erred in refusing to exercise its
jurisdiction.
                                                                                F
     Respondent worked as a casual worker in appellant-Bank for
about three and a half months. Thereafter his services were terminated
and another person was appointed in his place. This led to an industrial
dispute and the appropriate Government made a reference to the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the                  G
specific issue relating to violation of s.25-H of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. The Labour Court though recorded a finding that the
workman failed to prove that after termination of his services,
employment in his place of another person was in violation of s. 25-H,
but held that employer having not maintained the seniority was found            H
                                    701
    702                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   to have violated r. 77 of the Industrial Disputes Rules; and therefore, the
    workman was entitled to be reinstated with 50% of back wages. The
    employer challenged the order before the High Court which declined
    to exercise its jurisdiction. Aggrieved, the employer filed the present
    appeal.

B         Allowing the appeal, the Court

         HELD : 1.1. The Industrial Court, it is well settled, derives its
    jurisdiction from the reference. The specific issue which was referred
    for determination by the Labour Court related to the dispute as regards
C   violation of s.25H of the Act. If the said provisions had not been found
    to be violated, the question of setting aside the order of termination by
    the Labour Court did not and could not arise. It could not have passed
    the order going beyond the terms of reference. Non-maintenance of any
    register in terms of r. 77 of the Industrial Disputes Rules was not in issue.
    However, r.79 provides for imposition of penalty on the employer for
D   failure in complying with r.77. The award of the Labour Court suffers
    from an illegality which appears on the face of the record.
                                               (704-H, 705-A-B, 706-D, 707-AJ

         Mukand ltd. v. Mukand Staff & Officers' Association, (2004) 10 SCC
E   460, relied on.

         1.2. The Single Judge proceeded on the premise that the High
    Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot sit in appeal over the
    award of the Labour Court. But then only because the jurisdiction of the
F   High Court while exercising its power of judicial review was limited, it
    would not mean that even a jurisdictional error could not have been
    corrected. While passing the award, if the Labour Court exceeds its
    jurisdiction, the award must be held to be suffering from a jurisdictional
    error. It was liable to be corrected by the High Court in exercise of its
    power of judicial review. The High Court, therefore, clearly fell in error
G   in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction. The award and the judgment of
    the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. The award is set aside to
    the extent of order of reinstatement with back wages.(706-E, 707-A-B)

          Sadhna lodh v. National Insurance Co. ltd., (200313 SCC 524, relied
H   on.
      STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR v. O.P. SHARMA [SINHA, J.]      703

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2636 of                  A
2006.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 3.6.2004 of High Court of
Judicature for Rajashtan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal
(Writ) No. 368 of 2004.
                                                                              B
    M.N. Krishnamani, Anil Kumar Sangal, N. Sangal and Deba P.
Mohanti him for the Appellant.

     M.P. Calla, Naveen R. Nath, Anitha Shenoy, Lalit Mohini Bhat and
Hetu Arora him for the Respondents.                                           c
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     S.B. SINHA, J. : Leave granted.

      This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 3.6.2004
                                                                              D
passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High court, whereby and
whereunder an intra-court appeal filed by the appellant herein from a
judgment and order dated 23.4.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge
affirming an Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court (COIT) dated 13.9.1999 was dismissed.                            E
      The respondent herein was a casual workman. He had worked with
the appellant-Bank from 6.8.1994 till 17.11.1994. His services were
terminated. An industrial dispute was raised by him culminating in a
reference made by the Appropriate Government to the Industrial Tribunal
                                                                              F
which reads as under:

              "Whether the action of the management of SBBJ, Jaipur is
        justified in terminating the services of Workman Shri Om Prakash
        Shanna S/o Shri Sita Ram Sharma w.e.f. 19/11/94 and employing
        another junior workman Shri Vijay Kumar in his place without          G
        giving any opportunity of employment in violation of section 25H
        of ID Act, 1947? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

     Before the Labour Court, a contention was raised as to whether the
provisions Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act', for   H
    704                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   short) and Rule 77 of the Industrial disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (ID Rules)
    have been violated, as one Vijay Kumar was said to be junior to him and
    was said to have been appointed in his place. A finding of fact was arrived
    at that the respondent failed to prove that after his termination of services
    Vijay Kumar was employed in his place in violation of Section 25H of the
    Act or otherwise. A finding, however, was arrived at that, no seniority record
B   was maintained, as is required under the Rules. The appellant was, thus,
    found to have violated Rule 77 of the ID Rules. A further finding was arrived
    at that Rule 77 being mandatory in nature, the respondent was entitled to
    be reinstated in service with 50% of back wages.

c         Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said Award, a writ petition was
    filed by the appellant herein before the Rajasthan High Court which was
    numbered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1474 of 2000.

          A learned Single Judge of the High Court in dismissing the said writ
    petition opined that if the reference in question referred only to Section 25H
D   of the Act, the same would not mean that the tribunal was debarred from
    going into the other illegalities committed under the Act or the amended
    Rules.

         An intra-court appeal preferred by the appellant herein thereagainst was
E   dismissed by a Division Bench stating:

                  "Learned Single Judge while relying upon the judgment of the
             Supreme Court in Sadhna v. National Insurance Co., (2003] 3 SCC
             526 found that it was not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under
             Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
F
                   We do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order
             passed by the learned Single Judge. The Labour Court by its award
             dated September 13, 1999 set aside the oral order of the appellant
             terminating the services of the respondent workman as the appellant
G            failed to publish the seniority list of workmen in accordance with
             Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules.

                   Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed."

H         The Industrial Court, it is well settled, derives its jurisdiction from the
            STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR v. O.P. SHARMA [SINHA, J.]       705

      reference. {See Mukand Ltd. v. Mukand Staff & Officers' Association,            A
      [2004] 10 SCC 460.} The reference made to the CGIT specifically refers
      to only one question, i.e., "Whether any illegality was committed by the
      management in giving appointment to one Vijay Kumar in place of the
      respondent in violation of Section 25H of ID Act, 1947?" Non-maintenance
      of any ·register in terms of Rule 77 of the ID Rules was, thus, not in issue.
      Before the Industrial Court, the parties adduced evidence. An attempt was
                                                                                      B
      inade by the respondent herein to show that oneVijay Singh was appointed,
      although the name of one Vijay Kumar appeared in the reference. An
      attempt was also made by the respondent to show that Vijay Kumar and
    · Vijay Singh are one and the same person. In fact, one voucher was produced
      which was allegedly issued in the name of one Vijay Sharma. The said            c
      contentions of the respondent were denied and disputed by the appellant
      herein.

           In that context, the Industrial Court held that the appellant was not
     guilty of violation of provisions of Section 25H of the· Act. Section 25H        D
     reads thus:

              "25H. Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer
              proposes to take into his employment any persons, he shall, in such
              manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity [to the retrenched
1             workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-           E
              employment, and such retrenched workmen] who offer themselves
              for re-employment shall have preference over other persons."



          It is no doubt true, as was contended by Mr. M.P. Calla, learned Senior     F
     Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent herein, that the Labour Court
     formulated four different issues and one of the issues was the purported non-
     compliance of Rule 77 of the ID Rules. But the Labour Court even could
     not have framed any such issue. Rule 77 reads thus:

                    "Maintenance of seniority list of workman: - The employer         G
              shall prepare a list of all workman in the particular category from
              which retrenchment is contemplated arranged accordingly to the
              seniority of their service in that category and cause a copy thereof
              to be pasted on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the premises
              of the industrial before the actual date of retrenchment."              H
    706                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A         By reason of the said Rule, the employer has been enjoined with a duty
    to prepare a list of all workmen in the particular category from which
    retrenchment is contemplated. Such a list was not prepared. The consequence
    of non-maintenance of the said document has been provided in Rule 79 of
    the ID Rules, being imposition of penalty. In case of violation on the part
    of the management to comply with the statutory provisions, thus, it could
B   have been subjected to penalty. Rule 77 may be mandatory in character. as
    was urged by Mr. Calla, but, only because the appellant herein did not
    maintain the prescribed register, the same by itself would not mean that the
    respondent herein would be entitled to be reinstated in service with back
    wages without establishing that the provision of Section 25H was violated.
c   The termination of the workman was not in issue. In any event, the Labour
    Court did not arrive at a finding that the termination of services of the
    appellant was illegal. He had not completed 240 days of service. In that
    view of the matter, the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes
    Act, 194 7 was not required to be complied with.

D         The specific issue which was, therefore, referred for determination by
    the Labour Court, related to the dispute as regards violation of Section 25H
    of the Act. If the said provisions had not been found to be violated, the
    question of setting aside the order of termination by the Labour Court did
    not and could not arise. The learned Single Judge proceeded on the premise
E   that the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot sit in appeal
    over the Award of the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge was right,
    but then, only because the jurisdiction of the High Court, while exercising
    of its power of judicial review was limited, it would not mean that even a
    jurisdictional error could not have been corrected. The provisions of Article
F   226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would be attracted if the inferior
     Tribunal has, inter alia, committed a jurisdictional error. What would be
    the ground for judicial review, in regard to the orders passed by an inferior
     Tribunal is no longer a res integra.

          In Sadhna Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd, [2003] 3 SCC 524,
G   the issue which came for consideration before this Court was as to
    whether in the face of the provision for an appeal, the High Court could
    exercise its power of judicial review. It was held that when an appeal power
    is vested in the High Court, ordinarily the writ jurisdiction could not be taken
    recourse to. Even in such a case, the court was held to have limited
H   jurisdiction.
       STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR v. O.P. SHARMA [SINHA, J.]            707

      In the instant case, the Award of the Labour Court suffers from an              A
illegality, which appears on the face or"the record. The jurisdiction of the
Labour Court emanated from the order of the reference. It could not have
passed an order going beyond the tenns of the reference. While passing the
A ward, if the Labour Court exceeds its jurisdiction, the Award must be held
to be suffering from a jurisdictional error. It was capable of being corrected
by the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. The High
                                                                                      B
Court, .therefore, clearly fell iri error in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction.
The Award and the judgment of the High Court, therefore, cannot be
sustained. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High
Court is set aside.      The award is set aside to the extent of order of
reinstatement with back wages. The writ petition filed by the appellant in            C
the High Court is, thus, allowed.

R.P.                                                            Appeal allowed.