STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.versusDEVI DUTT AND ORS.

A                        STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
                                     v.
                             DEVI DUTT AND ORS.

                                NOVEMBER 24, 2006

B                   (S.B. SINHA ANDMARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]


           Constitution of India, 1950:

        Article 226-Findings of fact recorded by Labour Court-Judicial
C review of-legal principles-Reiterated-On facts, no interference called
  for-Further, High Court ought not to have entertained additional affidavit
   without assigning cogent reason therefor-Practice and Procedure-Labour
    law.

           Labour Law:
D
           Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

          ss. 25-F and 25-G-Daily wagers-Discontinuation ofservices-Labour
    Court holding that workmen were not in continuous service for 240 days for
E   a period of I 2 months preceding the order of termination-Provisions of ss.
    25-F and 25-G, not infringed-High Court in writ petition setting aside the
    award-Held, High Court should not have interfered with the findings offact
    arrived at by Labour Court-Order of High Court set aside-Constitution of
    India-Article 226.

F         The appellant-State Government, in terms of a judgment of the High
    Court* laid down terms and conditions for regularization of daily wagers, as
    a result whereof services of the respondents were discontinued. On the
    industrial disputes being raised, the Labour Court held that the workmen
    having not been in continuous service for a period of240 days during a period
    of 12 months preceding the order of termination, provisions of ss.25-F and
G   25-G were not infringed. Writ petitions were filed by the respondent before
    the High Court wherein additional affidavits were also filed. The High Court
    held that the appellants having not disputed that the workmen were engaged
    on daily wages from February 1993 to January 1996, the impugned awards
    could not be sustained; and directed the matter to be remitted to the Labour
H                                           514

                                                                                    ·;
               STATEOFHARYANA v. DEVIDUTT[S.B. SINHA,J.]                       515
 Court. Aggrieved, the State Government filed the present appeal.                      A
       Allowing the appeal, the Court

        HELD: 1. The High Court erred in passing the impugned judgments
 and exceeded its jurisdiction. It failed to apply the well known legal principles
 of judicial review. Before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, evidences were        B
 adduced by the parties on the basis whereof the Labour Court, arrived at a
definite conclusion that the respondents had not been in continuous service
 for a period of240 days within 12 months preceding the date of termination
 and were disengaged keeping in view the exigency of work. It was found as of
 fact that no junior had been retained. Furthermore, the appellants acted bona         C
fide in terms of the directions issued by the High Court*. The orders of
termination were passed in terms of the policy decision. The High C<;mrt
ordinarily, without appreciating as to whether on the well known legal
 principles of judicial review, the findings of labour court require interference,
should not have interfered with the said findings of fact.
                                                                                       D
       *Kulbhushan v. State of Haryana, (1996) 1 RSJ 775, referred to.

       2. The High Court also ought not to have entertained an additional
 affidavit without assigning any sufficient or cogent reason therefor. The
·parties adduced their evidences before the Industrial Court. Why could they
 not bring on record any other evidence before the Labour Court, was not               E
 explained. The contentions raised before the High Court for the first time in
 the additional affidavits filed before it, were also not admitted by the appellants
 herein. Therefore, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained and are set
 aside. [517-E-F; 518-B)

       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5184 of2006.                     f
     From the Judgment and Order dated 24.2.2004 of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. Nos. 6135,6137 and 6136/2002.

      Ajay Siwach and T.V. George for the Appellants.
                                                                                       G
      Harish Chandra and Goodwill Indeevar for the Respondents.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      S.B; SINHA, J. Leave granted.
                                                                                       H
    516                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A          Respondents herein were recruited on daily wages. They were muster-
    roll employees. Pursuant to a decision of the High Court in Kulbhushan v.
    State ofHaryana [1996) I RSJ 775, engagement of daily wagers was purported
    to have been banned in terms whereof the State issued instructions ·on
    9.1.1996 to all the heads of departments, forbidding continuance of daily
    wagers on muster-roll. The work was directed to be carried out by workmen,
B   whose servicef. were to be regularised on fulfilment of terms and conditions
    of the policy laid down therefor. In terms of the said policy decision, the
    services of the respondents were terminated. Industrial Disputes were raised
    alleging violation of different provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the
    Act'). Before the Labour Court, both the parties adduced their respective
C   evidences. By reason of three different Awards, the Presiding Officer, Labour
    Court arrived at a definite finding that the workmen having not been in
    continuous service for a period of 240 days during a period of 12 months
    preceding the order of termination, the retrenchment of the workmen was not
    violative of Section 25F of the Act. It was further held that the provisions of
    Sections 25G thereof had also not been infringed.
D
          Writ petitions were filed by the respondents aggrieved by and dissatisfied
    therewith. In the said proceedings, additional affidavits were filed. The High
    Court reversed the findings of fact arrived at by the Presiding Officer, Labour
    Court holding that as the appellants had not denied or disputed that the
E   workmen were engaged as daily wagers from February, 1993 to January, 1996,
    the impugned J. wards could not be sustained. The matters were directed to
    be remitted to the Labour Court.

          The State is, thus, before us.

F         Mr. Ajay Siwach, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
    would submit that the High Court committed a manifest error in setting aside
    the findings of fact arrived at by the Labour Court.

          Mr. Harish Chandra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
    respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the Labour Court having
G   not considered the materials on record in their proper perspective, the High
    Court cannot be said to have committed any error in reversing the said
    findings. Our attention was also drawn to the following statements made in
    the counter affidavit in this behalf :

            " ... .If the muster roll for the months of February, 1995, March, 1995
H
             STATEOFHARYANA v. DEVI DUTT [S.B. SINHA,J.)                     517
        and June, 1995 are taken into consideration, the working days as             A
        reflected by the workman as 21 Yi, 30 and 24 are taken into consideration,
        a period of 75Yi days is required to be added and after adding 75Yi
        days, the total number of days comes to 264Yi days which is more
        than 240 days. The respondent had also worked in January, 1996 for
        21 days, thus total number of days comes to 285!/i days."
                                                                                     B
      Before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, evidences were adduced by
the parties. The Labour Court, on the basis of the materials placed before it,
arrived at a definite conclusion that the respondents herein had not been in
continuous service for a period of 240 days within 12 months preceding the
date of termination.
                                                                                     c
       The High Court ordinarily should not have interfered with the said
finding of fact. We, although, do not mean to suggest that the findings of
fact cannot be interfered with by the superior courts in exercise of their
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the same
should be done upon application of the well known legal principles such as: D
 (I) when it is perverse; (2) when wrong legal principles have been applied;
(3) when wrong questions were posed; (4) when relevant facts have not been
taken into consideration; or (5) the findings have been arrived at on the basis
of the irrelevant facts or on extraneous consideration.

      The High Court ordinarily also ought not to have entertained an                E
additional affidz.vit without assigning any sufficient or cogent reason therefor.
The parties adduced their evidences before the Industrial Court. Why could
they not bring on records any other evidence before the Labour Court, was
not explained. The contentions raised before the High Court for the first time
in the additional affidavits filed before it, were also not admitted by the          F
appellants herein.

      We, therefore, are of the opinion that the High Court erred in passing
the impugned judgments. Submission of Mr. Harish Chandra that this Court
should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India, cannot be accepted. The High Court, in our opinion,           G
has exceeded its jurisdiction. It failed to apply the well known legal principles
of judicial review. Furthermore, the appellants acted bona fide. The orders of
termination were passed in terms of its policy decision. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court categorically opined that the workmen had been disengaged
keeping in view the exigency of work, which had been mentioned in the
                                                                                     H
     518                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

· A muster-roll itself. It was found as of fact that no junior had been retained. The
     State also acted in terms of the directions issued by the High Court. Whether
     such directions were legal or illegal, is not a matter which fell for consideration
     before the Labour Court, but, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the
     appellants acted bona fide.

 B         For the reasons mentioned, the impugned judgments cannot be
     sustained, which are set aside. The appeal is allowed. No costs.

     RP.                                                              Appeal allowed.




                                                                                              I-




                                                                                           .,, '