ORDER
1. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the respondents on November 16, 2000 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated July 28, 2000 (Annexure P/4) passed by the District Judge, Chum by which the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 was partly allowed and order of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,236/- passed by the Payment of Wages Authority, Churu through order dated October 16, 1998 (Annexure 3) was set aside, be quashed and set aside and the order dated October 16, 1998 (Annexure 3) passed by the Payment of Wages Authority, Churu be accepted in toto.
2. The facts of the case in short are that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent No. 1 with effect from May 21, 1981 and thereafter his services were terminated on June 30, 1983 without following the procedure as provided in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947), on which the petitioner raised an industrial dispute.
3. The State Government made a reference as per Section 10 of the Act of 1947 to the Labour Court, Bikaner to the effect whether the termination of the petitioner w.e.f. June 30, 1983 was valid and if not what relief he was entitled to.
4. The Labour Court, Bikaner after hearing both the parties passed an award on November 17, 1994 in favour of the petitioner and directed the respondent No. 1 to reinstate the petitioner back in service with full back wages with effect from March 1, 1988 till the order of reinstatement.
5. In pursuance of that award dated November 17, 1994, the petitioner was taken back on duty on March 16, 1996. Further case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 did not make payment to the petitioner as per the terms of the award dated November 17, 1994 and therefore, he moved an application (Annexure P71) under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1936) before the Payment of Wages Authority, Churu, and the Payment of Wages Authority after hearing both the parties, passed an order dated October 16, 1998 (Annexure 3) by which Rs. 1,99,764 were ordered to be paid to the petitioner on account of illegal deduction and furthermore Rs. 1,00,236/- were ordered to be paid to the petitioner as compensation.
6. That against the order dated October 16, 1998, the respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal under Section 17 of the Act of 1936 before the District Judge, Churu and the learned District Judge, Churu vide judgment dated July 28, 2000 partly accepted the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 and by that judgment the portion of the order dated October 16, 1998 passed by the Payment of Wages Authority, by which the Payment of Wages Authority ordered to pay Rs. 1,00,236/- as compensation was set aside. Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer.
7. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent-No. 1 and in that reply, it has been submitted that the amount which was paid to the petitioner was to be paid as per terms of judgment and award dated November 17, 1994 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bikaner and the authorities could not travel beyond the terms of the Award and the respondent No. 1 also filed a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 443972000 against the same judgment and award dated July 28, 2000 against which the present writ petition has been filed and that writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated December 1, 2000 (Annexure R/1) and further the learned Labour Court did not allow any interest on the amount of back wages, therefore, from this point of view also, the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,2367- awarded by the Payment of Wages Authority through order dated October 16, 1998 (Annexure 3) was wrong and that portion of the order dated October 16, 1998 (Annexure 3) by which compensation was awarded to the petitioner was rightly set aside by the learned District Judge, Churu. Hence, the writ petition should be dismissed.
8. Heard and perused the record.
9. Copy of the judgment and award dated November 17, 1994 has not been produced by the petitioner, but from the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the Labour Court through judgment and award dated November 17, 1994 ordered that the petitioner be reinstated in service with full back wages.
10. From perusal of order dated October 16, 1998 (Annexure 3) passed by the Payment of Wages Authority, Churu, it is clear that the Payment of Wages Authority allowed the petitioner back wages to the tune of Rs. 1,99,764/- and further awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,236/- to the petitioner. In my opinion, the order whereby the learned Payment of Wages Authority allowed compensation to be paid to the petitioner was rightly set aside by the District Judge through judgment dated July 28, 2000 (Annexure P/4) because the Labour Court, Bikaner awarded the petitioner full back wages and when full back wages have been paid to the petitioner, the petitioner was not entitled to interest or compensation on that amount. From this point of view, the findings recorded by the learned District Judge, Churu are liable to be confirmed one. Further more, the judgment dated July 28, 2000 (Annexure P/4) passed by the District Judge, Churu has been upheld by this Court in another Writ Petition No. 4439/2000 by judgment dated December 1, 2000 (Annexure R/1), it would not be proper to challenge the judgment dated July 28, 2000 (Annexure P/4) in another writ petition filed by another party and hence, no interference is called for in the judgment dated July 28, 2000 (Annexure P/4) passed by the District Judge, Churu.
On the point of Applicability and Scope of Article 227 of The Constitution of India
11. It is well established that it is only when an order of a Tribunal is violative of the fundamental basic principles of justice and fair play or where a patent or flagrant error in procedure or law has crept in or where the order passed results in manifest injustice, that a Court can justifiably intervene under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
12. The power of general superintendence conferred by Article 227 involves a duty on the part of the High Court to keep all Courts and Tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction within the bounds of their authority to see that they do what their duty requires and they do it in a legal manner. This means that the High Court can interfere in cases of-
(a) Erroneous assumption or excess of jurisdiction.
(b) Refusal to exercise jurisdiction.
(c) Error of law apparent on the face of the record, as distinguished from a mere mistake of law or error of law relating to jurisdiction.
(d) Violation of principles of natural justice.
(e) Arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority, or discretion.
(f) Arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material.
13. Under Article 227, the High Court cannot interfere with the exercise of a discretionary power vested in the inferior Court or Tribunal, unless its finding or order is clearly perverse or patently unreasonable.
14. In my considered opinion, the findings recorded by the District Judge, Churu are based on correct appreciation of entire evidence and material available on record. It cannot be said that the findings of the District Judge, Churu are erroneous or perverse or patently unreasonable or based on no material or evidence. It also cannot be said that the District Judge, Churu committed any illegality in setting aside that portion of order dated October 16, 1998 (Annexure 3) passed by the learned Payment of Wages Authority whereby the learned Payment of Wages Authority awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,236/- to the petitioner. The findings of the District Judge, Churu do not suffer from any basic illegality or infirmity.
15. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned judgment dated July 28, 2000 (Annexure P/4) passed by the District Judge, Churu does not warrant any interference of this Court and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
16. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.
17. Cost made easy.