{"id":187499,"date":"2011-02-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011"},"modified":"2017-12-16T12:49:04","modified_gmt":"2017-12-16T07:19:04","slug":"manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"Manager vs Dp on 22 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Manager vs Dp on 22 February, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/8127\/2003\t 16\/ 18\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 8127 of 2003\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nMANAGER,\nGUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDP\nJOSHI - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nRC JANI for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nNOTICE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 22\/02\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
Heard
\n\tlearned Advocate Mr. RC Jani for petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthis matter, while issuing notice by making it returnable on
\n\t17.6.2003, execution and operation of impugned order has been stayed
\n\tby this Court and thereafter, Rule has been issued by this Court on
\n\t27th August, 2003. Thereafter, by order dated 13.7.2004,
\n\tad interim relief granted earlier was confirmed by this Court.
\n\tInitially, notice issued by this court was served upon respondent
\n\tand respondent had appeared before this Court through learned
\n\tAdvocate Mr. KS Acharya and filed affidavit in reply in this matter
\n\ton 19th November, 2003. However, subsequently, after
\n\tlearned advocate Mr. KS Acharya expired, fresh notice issued by this
\n\tCourt has remained unserved to respondent DP Joshi where c\/o.
\n\taddress has  been given of union. This being a matter of
\n\t2003, in all 33 occasions, matter has been adjourned and yet no
\n\tsteps have been taken by petitioner to serve notice to respondent
\n\tand, therefore, matter has been heard by this Court in absence of
\n\trespondent while considering affidavit in reply filed earlier by
\n\trespondent in this matter.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthis petition, petitioner Gujarat Electricity Board has challenged
\n\taward passed by Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) NO.
\n\t83 of 1993 decided on 18th November, 2002 wherein
\n\tIndustrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad has declared that respondent who is
\n\tperforming duties at Gandhinagar Thermal Power Station is entitled
\n\tto have Notional Promotion Order in Technician Gr.III as per
\n\tCircular No. 446 with effect from 24.2.1986 and he is also entitled
\n\tto recover from GEB whatever financial loss suffered by him
\n\tconsidering him as Technician Gr. III and to get consequential
\n\tbenefits.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tAdvocate Mr. RC Jani for petitioner has raised contention before
\n\tthis Court that Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad has committed gross
\n\terror in not considering contention raised by petitioner that
\n\tdispute has been belatedly raised by respondent employee. He also
\n\tsubmitted that the certificate of Executive Engineer which was
\n\tproduced vide Exh. 51, Mr. JN Chhabda cannot be relied upon in view
\n\tof Circular dated 22nd January, 1992 page 24 issued by
\n\tGujarat Electricity Board. He submitted that only certificate issued
\n\tby Superintending Engineer is to be considered valid and certificate
\n\tissued by Executive Engineer cannot be relied upon. Therefore,
\n\tIndustrial Tribunal has committed gross error in relying upon Exh.
\n\t51 certificate. He also submitted that Establishment Circular No.
\n\t446 has not been properly read and understood by Industrial Tribunal
\n\tand respondent employee has not proved facts before Industrial
\n\tTribunal that at the time when he was absorbed in post of Helper as
\n\ta regular employee, at that time, he was working as NMR in
\n\tTechnician Grade III or performing work of Technician Gr. III. He
\n\talso submitted that subsequently in the year 1990, concerned
\n\temployee was promoted in post of Technician Gr. III from post of
\n\thelper and thereafter, he was again promoted in year 1993 in post of
\n\tTechnician Gr. II and therefore, seniority is also disturbed because
\n\tof award passed by Industrial Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthis petition, affidavit in reply is filed by respondent employee DP
\n\tJoshi and along with affidavit in reply, certain documents have been
\n\tproduced on record. From that, learned advocate Mr.Jani for
\n\tpetitioner has relied upon page 35 dated 10th July, 1990
\n\tand raised contention that respondent employee was not qualified as
\n\tper qualification at Sr. No.5 for the post of Technician Gr. III
\n\twhich require to have cleared Trade Certificate of Mechanical\/Fitter
\n\tfrom ITI, therefore, he relied upon page 37 item no. 5. But looking
\n\tto qualification possessed by Respondent employee, he was qualified
\n\tas per Sr. No. 5, page 37 where qualification is mentioned for the
\n\tpost of Technician Grade III.  Respondent employee has also produced
\n\testablishment circular no. 578 and certificate issued by Executive
\n\tEngineer Exh. 53 where it has been made clear that respondent
\n\temployee has been recruited as Skilled NMR in Instrument Section and
\n\the was found hard working and enthusiastic for learning all kind of
\n\tworks. It was also certified that during his continued service
\n\tperiod, he has passed examination of ITI Inst., BA and IInd Class
\n\tWireman which shows his interest in study and increasing knowledge.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave considered submissions made by learned advocate Mr. RC Jani for
\n\tpetitioner. I have also considered affidavit in reply filed by
\n\trespondent in this matter and documents annexed thereto. Industrial
\n\tdispute has been referred to by appropriate Government for
\n\tadjudication on 31st March, 1993. As per Schedule of
\n\tReference, it was required to be adjudicated whether respondent
\n\temployee is entitled for Technician Gr.III from 24.2.86 as per
\n\tEstablishment Circular NO. 446 with all consequential benefits or
\n\tnot. In support of demand, respondent employee has filed statement
\n\tof claim Exh. 3 and according to him, he was appointed by petitioner
\n\tboard on Nominal Muster Roll with effect from 6th
\n\tJanuary, 1982 and after a period of four years, he was made
\n\tpermanent as per establishment circular no. 446 w.e.f. 24.2.1986.
\n\tHis educational qualification is BA, ITI Instrument Mechanic Course
\n\tpass. While he was in NMR, he had independently performed work of
\n\tTechnician and as he is having vast experience, therefore, as per
\n\tprovisions of Circular NO. 446, he was entitled for post of
\n\tTechnician Gr. III as per Establishment Circular No. 446 and yet he
\n\twas made permanent in post of helper and, therefore, dispute has
\n\tbeen raised by workman. Written statement was filed by petitioner
\n\tBoard vide Exh. 10 raising contention  about delay in raising
\n\tdispute and not raised industrial dispute  or made any complaint
\n\tfrom 1986 to 1993 till date when dispute is referred for
\n\tadjudication. Petitioner board has produced certain documents vide
\n\tlist Exh. 10 wherein Exh. 21 is copy of joining report of respondent
\n\thelper when he joined as helper and copy of affidavit made by
\n\tworkman is at Exh. 22. Vide Exh. 23, copy of office order absorbing
\n\tworkman as helper has been produced. Exh. 24 is extract of service
\n\tbook of workman. Exh. 25 and 26 are office orders of promotion to
\n\trespondent in Technical Gr. III and II. Exh. 27 is extract of
\n\tservice book of workman. Establishment Circular NO. 446 was produced
\n\tby workman vide Exh. 18 and understanding of said circular has been
\n\tproduced at Exh. 17\/2. Vide Exh. 53, copy of application of workman
\n\taddressed to GEB dated 30.7.1986 has been produced. Vide Exh. 51,
\n\tcertificate issued to workman by his Executive Engineer has been
\n\tproduced.\n<\/p>\n
Respondent
\n\temployee was examined before industrial tribunal vide Exh. 45 and
\n\tone witness Alpaben was examined on behalf of petitioner vide Exh.\n<\/p>\n
\t51. Thereafter, matter has been considered by Industrial Tribunal on
\n\tthe basis of evidence which are on record. Industrial Tribunal has
\n\tconsidered oral evidence of both parties and also considered
\n\tEstablishment Circular No. 446 and certificate Exh. 53 given by
\n\tExecutive Engineer in favour of respondent employee. Industrial
\n\tTribunal  has observed that there was no documentary evidence\/oral
\n\tevidence produced on record by petitioner board that while working
\n\tin the post of NMR, which kind of work was being carried out or
\n\tperformed by respondent employee,for that, nothing has been produced
\n\ton record by petitioner. Establishment Circular has made it clear
\n\tthat the capacity in which workman of Nominal Muster Roll has been
\n\tworking, on the same post, in the same capacity, he should be given
\n\tappointment and for that, there must be completion of 240 days
\n\tservice each year and in this manner, there must be 960 days work on
\n\tNominal Muster Roll. Industrial Tribunal has considered that the
\n\twitness for petitioner Board has stated in his cross examination
\n\tthat when workman is engaged on Nominal Muster Roll, at that time,
\n\tno order is being issued in writing in his favour which suggests
\n\tnature of work is to be performed by him. Considering such oral and
\n\tdocumentary evidence, it was observed by Industrial Tribunal that
\n\twhen no evidence in writing has been produced that which duties have
\n\tbeen performed by respondent workman when he was engaged, then,
\n\twhile workman was performing duties on Nominal Muster Roll, as per
\n\tcertificate of GEB, it is clearly appearing that he was performing
\n\tduties as Technician as Skilled Nominal Muster Roll. Industrial
\n\tTribunal has relied upon certificate issued by Executive Engineer
\n\tExh. 53 where this certificate has been accepted by witness for GEB.
\n\tAs per certificate, respondent employee was working in Instrument
\n\tSection as Skilled NMR but at the time when he was working as NMR,
\n\the was not working in the post of helper or he was not carrying out
\n\twork as helper. As regards contention about raising of an industrial
\n\tdispute belatedly, industrial tribunal has come to conclusion that
\n\tworkman has made application to petitioner board to consider his
\n\tcase for post of Technician Gr. III as per circular No. 446 issued
\n\tby GEB in letter dated 30th July, 1986, however, his
\n\tapplication was not considered by petitioner board. Industrial
\n\tTribunal has also considered Exh. 17\/3 where Additional Chief
\n\tEngineer has by letter dated 24.1.1986 made it clear that respondent
\n\temployee was working in the post of Skilled Labour in Instrument
\n\tTechnician Gr. III and, therefore, it has been recommended to give
\n\tposting or post of Technician Gr. III to present respondent
\n\temployee. Such recommendation made by Additional Chief Engineer
\n\tproduced on record vide Exh. 17\/2 and, therefore, demand has been
\n\tmade by workman after receiving order in the post of helper for
\n\tgiving post of Technician Gr. III because he was working and
\n\tperforming in the said post and carrying out same work in Instrument
\n\tTechnician Department and, therefore, contention raised by
\n\tpetitioner Board about delay before industrial tribunal has been
\n\trejected by industrial tribunal. Important facts have been rightly
\n\tappreciated by Industrial Tribunal that there was no evidence on
\n\trecord produced by petitioner Board  that while working in the post
\n\tof NMR, which kind of work was actually being performed or carried
\n\tout by respondent employee, for that, there was no oral\/documentary
\n\tevidence produced by petitioner Board before tribunal and,
\n\ttherefore, in absence of such material, industrial tribunal has
\n\trightly appreciated certificate issued by Executive Engineer and has
\n\trightly appreciated recommendation made by Additional Chief Engineer
\n\tvide Exh. 17\/2. Industrial Tribunal has also considered contention
\n\tof delay while granting relief in favour of respondent employee and
\n\thas directed that notional promotion order is to be issued by
\n\tpetitioner  and whatever difference between the post of helper and
\n\ttechnician Gr. III, financial loss is to be paid by petitioner Board
\n\tto concerned respondent employee with all consequential benefits.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tlight of aforesaid observations and reasoning given by Industrial
\n\tTribunal, contention of delay cannot be examined by industrial
\n\ttribunal once when reference is made by appropriate Government to
\n\tindustrial Tribunal. Once reference is made, Industrial Tribunal
\n\tcannot go behind Reference and it is not open for Industrial
\n\tTribunal to decide legality and validity of order of Reference. In
\n\trecent decision of apex court in case of Kuldeep Singh v. G.M.
\n\tInstrument Design Development and Facilities Centre & Anr., AIR
\n\t2011 SC 455, this aspect has
\n\tbeen examined by Apex Court. Relevant paragraph 21 is quoted as
\n\tunder:\n<\/p>\n
 21)
\n\tIn view of the above, law can be summarized that there is no
\n\tprescribed time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its
\n\tpowers under Section 10 of the Act. It is more so in view of the
\n\tlanguage used, namely, if any industrial dispute exists or is
\n\tapprehended, the appropriate government “at any time”
\n\trefer the dispute to a Board or Court for enquiry. The reference
\n\tsought for by the workman cannot be said to be delayed or suffering
\n\tfrom a lapse when law does not prescribe any period of limitation
\n\tfor raising a dispute under Section 10 of the Act. The real test for
\n\tmaking a reference is whether at the time of the reference dispute
\n\texists or not and when it is made it is presumed that the State
\n\tGovernment is satisfied with the ingredients of the provision, hence
\n\tthe Labour Court cannot go behind the reference. It is not open to
\n\tthe Government to go into the merit of the dispute concerned and
\n\tonce it is found that an industrial dispute exists then it is
\n\tincumbent on the part of the Government to make reference. It cannot
\n\titself decide the merit of the dispute and it is for the appropriate
\n\tCourt or Forum to decide the same. The satisfaction of the
\n\tappropriate authority in the matter of making reference under
\n\tSection 10(1) of the Act is a subjective satisfaction. Normally, the
\n\tGovernment cannot decline to make reference for laches committed by
\n\tthe workman. If adequate reasons are shown, the Government is bound
\n\tto refer the dispute to the appropriate Court or Forum for
\n\tadjudication.  Even though, there is no limitation prescribed for
\n\treference of dispute to the Labour Court\/Industrial Tribunal, even
\n\tso, it is only reasonable that the disputes should be referred as
\n\tsoon as possible after they have arisen and after conciliation
\n\tproceedings have failed, particularly, when disputes relate to
\n\tdischarge of workman. If sufficient materials are not put forth for
\n\tthe enormous delay, it would certainly be fatal. However, in view of
\n\tthe explanation offered by the workman, in the case on hand, as
\n\tstated and discussed by us in the earlier paragraphs, we do not
\n\tthink that the delay in the case on hand has been so culpable as to
\n\tdisentitle him any relief. We are also satisfied that in view of the
\n\tdetails furnished and the explanation offered, the workman cannot be
\n\tblamed for the delay and he was all along hoping that one day his
\n\tgrievance would be considered by the Management or by the
\n\tState Government.\n<\/p>\n
Contention
\n\traised by learned advocate Mr.Jani for petitioner cannot be accepted
\n\t because on behalf of petitioner Board, Executive Engineer Mr.
\n\tChhabda was not examined before industrial tribunal to deny contents
\n\tof certificate Exh. 53 which has been issued by Executive Engineer
\n\tin favour of respondent employee. Therefore, according to my
\n\topinion, industrial tribunal has not committed any error in
\n\tadjudicating industrial dispute referred to it by appropriate
\n\tGovernment. This Court is having limited jurisdiction under Article
\n\t227 of Constitution of India while considering award in question.
\n\tThis Court can interfere with award while exercising power under
\n\tArticle 227 of Constitution of India if serious dereliction of duty
\n\tand flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice
\n\tand grave injustice remained incorrected. This Court cannot exercise
\n\tpowers as an appellate court or substitute its own opinion in place
\n\tof that of subordinate court for correcting error which is not
\n\tapparent on the face of record. This court cannot disturb finding of
\n\tfact as examined by industrial tribunal. This view has been taken by
\n\tapex court in case of Jai Singh & Ors. v. Municipal
\n\tCorporation of Delhi and Anr. With Municipal Corporation of Delhi<\/a> v.
\n\tSh. Jai Singh and Ors., 2010 AIR SCW pg. 5968.\n<\/p>\n
\tRelevant para 25 of said judgment is quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n
 25.
\n\t  Undoubtedly, the High Court has the power to reach
\n\tinjustice whenever, wherever found. The scope and ambit of Article
\n\t227 of the Constitution of India had been discussed in the case of
\n\tThe Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., [(2001) 8 SCC 97]
\n\twherein it was observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
 “The
\n\tscope and ambit of exercise of power and  jurisdiction by a High
\n\tCourt under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and
\n\texplained in a number of decisions of this  Court. The exercise of
\n\tpower under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep
\n\tinferior courts and tribunals within the  bounds of their authority
\n\tand to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a
\n\tlegal manner. The High Court is not vested  with any unlimited
\n\tprerogative to correct all  kinds of hardship or wrong decisions
\n\tmade within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts
\n\tor tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders
\n\tof  the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious
\n\tdereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles
\n\tof law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere,    a
\n\t   grave    injustice    remains uncorrected. It is also well
\n\tsettled that the  High Court while acting under this article cannot
\n\texercise its power as an appellate court  or substitute its own
\n\tjudgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an
\n\terror, which is not apparent on the face of the  record. The High
\n\tCourt can set aside or ignore  the findings of facts of an inferior
\n\tcourt or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the
\n\tfinding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come
\n\tto such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has  come to.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn our opinion, the High
\n\tCourt committed a serious error of jurisdiction in entertaining the
\n\twrit petition filed by MCD under Article 227 of the Constitution of
\n\tIndia in the peculiar circumstances of this case. The decision to
\n\texercise jurisdiction had to be taken in accordance with the
\n\taccepted norms of care, caution, circumspection. The issue herein
\n\tonly related to a tenancy and subletting. There was no lis relating
\n\tto the ownership of the land on which the superstructure or the
\n\tdemised premises had been constructed. The whole issue of ownership
\n\tof plot of land No:2, Block-B, transport area of Jhandewalan Estate,
\n\tDesh Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi is the subject matter
\n\tof a civil suit being Suit No: 361 of 1980 in the High Court of
\n\tDelhi. The High Court, therefore, ought not to have given any
\n\topinion on the question
\n\tof ownership.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tMA Azim v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
\n\t2011-I-CLR 283,  it has been
\n\tobserved by Bombay High Court as under in para 11 and 12:\n<\/p>\n
 11.\tAt
\n\tthis stage, it would be appropriate to refer to few important
\n\tjudgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court laying down
\n\ttherein the scope to entertain petition under of Article 226 and 227
\n\tof the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of
\n\t Nagendra Nath Bora and Anr. v. Commissioner of Hills Division and
\n\tAppeals, Assam & Ors.,<\/a> reported in AIR 1958 SC 398  in para
\n\tNo. 30 held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
 30.
\n\t the powers of judicial interference under Art. 227 of the
\n\tConstitution with orders of judicial or quasi-judicial nature, are
\n\tnot greater than the powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
\n\tUnder Art. 226, the power of interference may extend to quashing an
\n\timpugned order on the ground of a mistake apparent on the face of
\n\tthe record. But under Art. 227 of the Constitution, the power of
\n\tinterference is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within
\n\tthe limits of its authority.\n<\/p>\n
Yet
\n\tin another case, in a case of  Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai,<\/a>
\n\treported in AIR 2003 SC 3044  the Hon’ble Supreme in its
\n\tconclusion held :-\n<\/p>\n
(5)<\/span><\/p>\n
\tBe it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory
\n\tjurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of
\n\tlaw unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error
\n\tis manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when
\n\tit is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions
\n\tof law, and (iii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has
\n\toccasioned thereby.\n<\/p>\n
(6)<\/span><\/p>\n
\tA patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e., which can be
\n\tperceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or
\n\tcomplicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two
\n\tinferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has
\n\tchosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent.\n<\/p>\n
(7)<\/span><\/p>\n
\tThe power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory
\n\tjurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate
\n\tcases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to
\n\tact lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should
\n\toccasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised,
\n\twhen any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked
\n\tduring the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate
\n\tcourt and error though calling for correction is yet capable of
\n\tbeing corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or
\n\trevision preferred there against and entertaining a petition
\n\tinvoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of High Court would
\n\tobstruct the smooth flow and\/or early disposal of the suit or
\n\tproceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the
\n\terror is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become
\n\tincapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene
\n\twould result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself
\n\twould result in prolonging of the lis.\n<\/p>\n
(8)<\/span><\/p>\n
\tThe High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction
\n\twill not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in
\n\tre-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in
\n\tdrawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical
\n\tcharacter.\n<\/p>\n
And
\n\tin a case of Babulal S\/o. Navalmal Pipada v. Dropadbai W\/o.Manohar
\n\tGore & Others reported in 2010(5) Mh. LJ, this Court has held
\n\tthus:\n<\/p>\n
 One
\n\tcannot be oblivious of the parameters required to be observed for
\n\tthe purpose of exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227
\n\tof the Constitution of India.Unless it is demonstrated that the
\n\timpugned judgment suffers from vice of perversity, arbitrariness or
\n\tis rendered without considering material evidence or is rendered on
\n\tthe basis of no material interference with the finding of
\n\tCourts\/Tribunals is impermissible.The writ jurisdiction cannot be
\n\tinvoked for reappreciating of the evidence or for the purpose of
\n\trectification of minor errors committed by the Tribunals. Unless it
\n\tis demonstrated that the view taken by the MRT is per se against the
\n\tsettled principles of law, it is difficult to interfere with the
\n\tfindings recorded by the Tribunals below.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tTherefore,
\n\tit is clear from the pronouncements of Supreme Court and this Court
\n\twhich are referred supra that the Writ Jurisdiction cannot be
\n\tinvoked for reappreciating the evidence or for the purpose of
\n\trectification a minor errors committed by the Tribunals. Supervisory
\n\tjurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked unless it is
\n\tdemonstrated that the impugned judgments suffers from the vice of
\n\tperversity, arbitrariness or is rendered without considering
\n\tmaterial evidence or is rendered on the basis of no material
\n\tevidence or is rendered on the basis of no material, interference
\n\twith the findings of Courts\/Tribunals is impermissible.Therefore, in
\n\tlight of above, it is relevant to summarized here in below the
\n\tfindings recorded by the Labour Court on the basis of evidence
\n\tbrought on record by the parties.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of above discussion and observations made by apex court and
\n\tBombay High Court,  according to my opinion,  no error found
\n\tapparent on face of record  has been committed by industrial
\n\ttribunal and it is a clear case of finding of fact examined and
\n\tdecided by industrial tribunal and therefore it would not require
\n\tany interference of this court in exercise of powers under Article
\n\t227 of Constitution of India. Therefore, contentions raised by
\n\tlearned Advocate Mr. RC Jani for petitioner cannot be accepted. Same
\n\tare, therefore, rejected. Hence, there is no substance in this
\n\tpetition and same is required to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor
\n\treasons recorded above, this petition is dismissed. Interim relief,
\n\tif any, shall stand vacated forthwith. There shall be no order as to
\n\tcosts.\n<\/p>\n
(H.K.\n<\/p>\n
Rathod,J.)<\/p>\n
Vyas<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Manager vs Dp on 22 February, 2011 Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/8127\/2003 16\/ 18 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8127 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-187499","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManager vs Dp on 22 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manager vs Dp on 22 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-16T07:19:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manager vs Dp on 22 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-16T07:19:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3840,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011\",\"name\":\"Manager vs Dp on 22 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-16T07:19:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manager vs Dp on 22 February, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Manager vs Dp on 22 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manager vs Dp on 22 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-16T07:19:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manager vs Dp on 22 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-16T07:19:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011"},"wordCount":3840,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011","name":"Manager vs Dp on 22 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-16T07:19:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-dp-on-22-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manager vs Dp on 22 February, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187499","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=187499"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187499\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187499"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187499"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187499"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}