Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1542/2011 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1542 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2521 of 2011
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 10824 of 2011
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1542 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
PASCHIM
GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH & 2 - Appellant(s)
Versus
DIPESH
JYOTINDRA BHATT - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MS
RV ACHARYA for the Appellants.
MR NK MAJMUDAR for the
Respondent.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 18/10/2011
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
1. By
way of this Appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and
order dated 3.3.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special
Civil Application No. 2521 of 2011 whereby the award dated 14.12.2010
passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No. 176 of 2000
has been confirmed.
2. Ms.R.V.Acharya,
learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the
respondent employee was appointed as a meter reader through
contractor and he was never the employee of the
appellants-petitioners. However, while considering the case of the
appellants, the learned Single Judge has observed in paragraphs 5.1
to 5.6 as under:
“5.1 It
appears that all of the documents mentioned in the application were
not produced and that therefore the labour Court was requested to
draw adverse inference.
5.2 It also
comes out from the record that the labour Court, after having
considered the pleadings and material on record, had farmed four
issues including the issue as to whether there was
employment-employee relationship between the petitioner board and the
respondent workman or not.
5.3 The
findings recorded by the labour Court with regard to the issues
framed by it, are finding of facts.
The said
findings have been recorded by the Court on the basis of the evidence
placed before it. The petitioners seem to challenge such findings.
The re-appreciation of the evidence and that too with a view to
setting aside finding of facts and/or arriving at different
conclusion in respect of factual aspects, is neither within the scope
of petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
nor permissible.
5.4 In the case
between Mohd. Yunus, v. Mohd. Mustaqim (AIR 1984 SC 38) the Apex
Court has observed as follows:-
“A mere
wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227. The supervisory
jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the
Constitution is limited “to seeing that an inferior Court or
Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority” and not
to correct an error apparent on the face of the record much less an
error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227,
the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court on Tribunal. It
will not review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the determination
of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct
error of law in the decision.”
5.5 Even
otherwise, on perusal of the award it emerges that the labour Court
has taken into account cross-examination of the petitioner’s witness
who, during his cross-examination admitted that it was true that
during November 1991 the respondent workman had carried out the Job
of Meter Reading in Aaji sub-division and Sorathiya Vadi,
sub-division and that he nowhere stated that the respondent workman
was engaged as independent contractor.
5.6 The labour
Court has also recorded the admission of the witness that it was true
that the respondent was paid his renumeration and not commission.”
3. No
document is produced before the Labour Court as well as before the
learned Single Judge. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Single
Judge is just and proper. No interference is called for. The Appeal
is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. As a
consequence, the Civil Application is also dismissed.
(V.M.SAHAI,J)
(K.S.JHAVERI,J)
***vcdarji
Top