JUDGMENT
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 3rd September, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, which was filed challenging the award dated 20th February, 2007.
2. The services of the appellant herein, who was working as Manager, were terminated by the management. Consequent upon which he raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court on the following terms:
Whether the services of Sh. V.K. Sharma, S/o Sh. B.D. Sharma, R/o 972, Sector -III, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 022 have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief Along with consequential benefits in terms of existing laws / Government notification and to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?
3. After the aforesaid reference was entertained, statement of claim and written statement was filed by the parties, evidence was also led by the parties in support of their case. The learned Labour Court thereafter appreciated the evidence on record particularly with regard to the contentions raised by the management that the appellant is not a workman. On appreciation of the evidence, it was held by the Labour Court that at the time when the services of the appellant were terminated, he was working as a Manager and was discharging the functions of a Supervisor. In support of the said findings, the learned Labour Court has referred to the evidence adduced like the fact that 18 employees were working in the staff canteen under the appellant and that when he handed over the charge, he handed over the charge to the Coupon Clerk along with cash of Rs. 10,000/- stock register, keys of the office. From the aforesaid evidence it was deduced by the learned Labour Court that the said evidence conclusively proves and establishes that the appellant was in-charge of the store and canteen. The learned Labour Court also referred to the fact that on the aforesaid issue there was no cross examination sought by the workman and, therefore, the evidence which is led showing that the appellant was working as a Supervisor went unrebutted. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned Labour Court gave a finding that the appellant was performing mainly managerial and administrative work and he was supervising the work of other staff members in the canteen.
4. The aforesaid findings of fact were recorded on the basis of the evidence which is referred to in paragraph 14 of the award. The said finding, that the appellant was not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was challenged in the writ petition.
5. The learned Single Judge held that the Writ Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence as the said Court is not sitting as an appellate Court. It was also held that the Writ Court while exercising its jurisdiction should not find loopholes in the award and that it should be rather slow in interfering with the findings of fact by the Labour Court.
6. The contention, which was raised on behalf of the appellant that as a Manager the appellant had no power to grant leave and also had no other financial or administrative powers, was considered by the learned Single Judge and it was held that the said contention, which is raised, is belied by other findings of fact arrived at by the learned Labour Court.
7. The aforesaid dismissal of the writ petition is challenged in this appeal on which we have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that material evidence adduced by the workman as also by the management for deciding the question whether or not the appellant was a workman, was overlooked by the Labour Court and, therefore, the findings are required to be set aside and quashed.
8. We have appreciated the aforesaid contention in the light of the findings recorded in the award passed by the Labour Court. There is no denial of the fact that the appellant was initially appointed to the post of Assistant Manager – cum – Store Keeper and subsequently he was promoted to the post of Manager with effect from 1st May, 1996. His services were also terminated when he was working as a Manager. The Labour Court has examined as to what was the nature and duties of the Manager on the basis of the evidence adduced. On appreciation thereof it was held that the appellant was in fact discharging the duties of a Manager and was performing administrative work and also was supervising the work of other staff members in the canteen. The said conclusions and findings are based on the evidence and material referred to and relied upon by the learned Labour Court. Reference was made to the evidence on record which has established that when the appellant handed over the charge, he also handed over cash of Rs. 10,000/- stock register, keys of the office and also of staff canteen and stock. The said letter dated 16th February, 1999 records that the appellant has handed over charge as he was proceeding on leave. The aforesaid evidence which was adduced was not challenged as is established from a bare reading of the award passed by the learned Labour Court. Labour Court in order to arrive at its findings has examined material and evidence adduced by the parties. It has recorded that the appellant did not specifically cross examine witnesses of the management on the factum of duties of the appellant. We cannot as an appellate court, re-examine the said factual findings. It cannot be said that the award is based on no material or ignores relevant material. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that interfering with the aforesaid findings would amount to interfering with findings of fact, which the Writ Court could not have done.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.