IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (L) No. 597 of 2003
The Management of Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro......... Petitioner
Versus
The workman Ragini Devi & Anr................... Respondents
......
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amareshwar Sahay
......
For the Petitioner : M/s. Ananda Sen, Kaushal Agrawal
For the Workman : Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha
......
12/05.08.2009
Heard the parties.
The Management of Bokaro Steel Plant has filed this writ
application praying therein for quashing the award dated 11/06/2002,
passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro, whereby the
Labour Court has held that the age of the workman at the time of his
appointment was 33 years and not 43 years as claimed by the
Management. Accordingly, it was held that the workman was entitled to
continue in service till 31/03/2003 and, therefore, directed the
Management to reinstate him with 50% back wages with other
consequential benefits within three months.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the
time of entry in service, the age of the petitioner was recorded to be 33
years on the averments made by him only but, subsequently, he was
medically examined and he was found to be aged about 43 years and,
accordingly, his age as mentioned in the Personal Data Form was
corrected and was made 43 years. It is further submitted by the
petitioner that the dispute regarding change of age in the service
excerpts was raised by the workman only after his retirement and at
that belated stage he cannot allowed to raise such dispute regarding
his age.
From the impugned award, I find that the Labour Court
has considered this point raised by the Management and held that
there was no occasion for the workman to know about the scoring of
his age in the Personal Data Form and, therefore, he had no occasion to
challenge the same during his service period. He could know about the
change of his age in the Personal Date Form only after he was made to
retire by the Management. The Labour Court, on consideration of facts
and materials available on record, held that in fact, the workman had
-2-
declared his age as 33 years at the time of his entry into the service,
but it was obnoxiously and improperly scored out by the employer
without any justification with a view to force his retirement although he
was entitled to continue to work till 31/03/2003. The workman had
right to serve the Management till 31/03/2003. Accordingly, the
Labour Court directed for reinstatement of the workman with 50 %
back wages and other consequential benefits within three months.
I further find from the impugned award that though the
Management raised the plea that only after the medical examination of
the workman, his age was corrected in his Personal Data Form but as it
appears that in spite of the several opportunities given to the
Employer/Management, no documents in support of that plea was filed
by the Management before the Labour Court and, therefore, such plea,
raised by the Management, was not accepted by the Labour Court.
The Supreme Court in the case of “Syed Yakoob- versus-
K.S.RAdhakrishnan & Others, reported in AIR 1964 SC 477”, has held
that the writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of
jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals; these are the
cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without
jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise
jurisdiction.
It has further been held in the said decision that the writ of
certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the High Court cannot act as
an appellate court over the decision/award passed by the inferior
courts or tribunals. Finding of facts cannot be reopened by the High
Court sitting in the writ jurisdiction. Only an error of law can be
corrected and not any errors of fact how so ever grave it may be.
In this view of the matter, the challenge of the impugned
award by the Management/petitioner on the question of fact cannot be
entertained. The findings of fact arrived at by the Labour Court cannot
be interfered with in absence of any error of law. Accordingly, having
found no merit, this writ application is dismissed.
(Amareshwar Sahay, J)
Mukund/-