{"id":37691,"date":"2010-05-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010"},"modified":"2017-08-16T20:46:16","modified_gmt":"2017-08-16T15:16:16","slug":"deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Deputy vs Vinod on 10 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Deputy vs Vinod on 10 May, 2010<\/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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/1006\/2004\t 18\/ 18\tORDER \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. 1006 of 2004\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nDEPUTY\nEXECUTIVE ENGINEER - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nVINOD\nS. MAKWANA & 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nRC JANI for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nRULE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 4. \nMS\nHINA DESAI for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n4. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \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: 10\/05\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
Heard
\n\tlearned Advocate Mr. RC Jani for petitioner   Deputy Executive
\n\tEngineer, Tube well Sub Division, Taluka Panchayat, Mehsana  and
\n\tlearned Advocate Ms.Hina Desai for respondents workmen Shri Vinod S.
\n\tMakwana, Pasaji Kesaji Thakore, Kantiji Tejaji Thakore and Jaidev
\n\tAmbalal Garoda.\n<\/p>\n
Petitioner
\n\thas challenged award passed by Labour Court, Kalol in Reference No.
\n\t205 of 1988 decided on 31st July, 2003, Exh.55  where
\n\tlabour court has granted reinstatement on the same terms and
\n\tconditions on which workmen were in service and Rs.15000.00 lumpsum
\n\tamount has been granted to individual each workman in lieu of back
\n\twages for interim period. Initially rule was issued by this court on
\n\t28th January, 2004 and ad interim relief has been granted
\n\tby this court and thereafter, this court has directed petitioner to
\n\tpay last drawn wages because reinstatement has been stayed by this
\n\tCourt.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tAdvocate Mr. RC Jani for petitioner has raised contention before
\n\tthis Court that workmen were working with petitioner for more than
\n\tfour to five years as per case of respondents and on 31st
\n\tOctober, 1987, when they reached to working place without giving any
\n\tnotice or notice pay and retrenchment compensation, service of each
\n\tworkman was illegally terminated by petitioner. He further submitted
\n\tthat one Nandubhai, whose name is mentioned by labour court in
\n\timpugned award was not authorized person to appoint any workman but
\n\the was only employee of petitioner. He relied upon page 22 and
\n\tsubmitted that work was given on contract basis, therefore,
\n\tpetitioner has not terminated service of workmen. He further
\n\tsubmitted that labour court has considered facts which are contrary
\n\tto record and, therefore, impugned award passed by labour court is
\n\tbad in law. He also submitted that the reply was filed by petitioner
\n\tat Exh. 18 wherein it was stated that such workers were never
\n\tappointed by taluka panchayat and they were engaged by concerned
\n\tmechanics on daily rate basis and on that basis  muster roll
\n\tprepared by mechanic and payments were being made accordingly. He
\n\tfurther submitted that the respondents workmen themselves had
\n\tabandoned the  work and this fact has not been considered by labour
\n\tcourt. He further submitted that labour court has relied upon
\n\tcertificates produced below exh.26 and 27 issued by Additional
\n\tAssistant Engineer who is not an authority and having no power to
\n\tissue such certificate but labour court has not considered this
\n\taspect and therefore award passed by labour court is bad. He also
\n\tsubmitted that respondents have never completed 240 days continuous
\n\tservice within twelve months preceding date of termination and they
\n\twere not employees of petitioner taluka panchayat and, therefore,
\n\tquestion of compliance of section  25-F of ID Act does not arise. He
\n\trelied upon decision of apex court reported in 2002 (1) SCC 520 and
\n\tsubmitted that it is for employee to prove the case instead of
\n\tthrowing burden on employer and, therefore, labour court has
\n\tcommitted an error in deciding reference. He also submitted that
\n\tlabour court has also committed an error in not observing that at
\n\tpresent, activity of repairing of Patal Kuwa
\n\tare being done through contractor by Panchayat and therefore, no
\n\tsuch post can be filled up and without considering this, order of
\n\treinstatement on original post is passed which is contrary to
\n\tprovisions of law. As per his submission, labour court has committed
\n\tgross error in not considering that there is no work and, therefore,
\n\tthere is no question of granting reinstatement and lumsum amount has
\n\tbeen wrongly and roughly estimated which cannot be granted to such
\n\tworkmen, those who were working through contractor. He further
\n\tsubmitted that petitioner panchayat has no provision in budget
\n\tregarding payment of such amount to such workers are being engaged
\n\tthrough contractors and payment to contractor is made after passing
\n\tresolution by board and, therefore, it amounts to disturbing
\n\tprovisions of budget of financial year and, therefore award is
\n\trequired to be set aside. Except these submissions, no other
\n\tsubmission is made by learned Advocate Mr. RC Jani for petitioner
\n\tpanchayat and except decision referred to above, no other decision
\n\thas been cited by him before this court in support of contentions
\n\trecorded herein above.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\n\tAdvocate Ms. Hina Desai for respondents workmen submitted that
\n\tlabour court has rightly examined matter on the basis of evidence on
\n\trecord and each workman has completed continuous service of 240 days
\n\tin year and certificates have been produced to establish these facts
\n\tby each workman and on that basis, labour court has rightly come to
\n\tconclusion that service of each workman has been terminated by
\n\tpetitioner without following provisions of section 25-F of ID Act,
\n\t1947 and, therefore, such termination is rightly set aside by labour
\n\tcourt and relief of reinstatement is rightly granted in favour of
\n\teach workman, for that, according to her submission, no error is
\n\tcommitted by labour court which would require interference of this
\n\tcourt. She also submitted
\n\tthat labour court has rightly granted Rs.15,000.00 being lumsum
\n\tamount because petitioner panchayat is a public body, dispute has
\n\tbeen raised in the year 1988 when termination is dated 31st
\n\tOctober, 1987and workmen were daily wager and, therefore, she
\n\tsubmitted that entire award passed on the basis of facts and labour
\n\tcourt has decided factual aspects and, therefore, such fact finding
\n\tgiven by labour court cannot be disturbed  by this court in exercise
\n\tof powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave considered submissions made by both learned advocates. I have
\n\talso perused impugned award made by labour court. Before labour
\n\tcourt, statement of claim was filed by each workman separately at
\n\tExh. 7, 9. According to workmen, they were working with petitioner
\n\tpanchayat as mechanical helper in repairing and pipe fitting of
\n\tpump, motor line and carrying out same work with petitioner
\n\tpanchayat at Patal Kuwa. On 31.10.1987, at village Panchot on Patal
\n\tKuwa, they were having duties and in said Patal kuwa, with column
\n\tpipe 26 that is with motor pump, level of said bore comes to 260 ft.
\n\tand looking to that, mechanical gangman would require at least six
\n\tpersons and responsible mechanical person Nandubhai Jadav was
\n\tinformed that said pump could not be opened through four persons
\n\tand, therefore, he had been excited and abused and said that more
\n\tpersons will not be available now you are not required and saying
\n\tso, by way of an oral order, terminated their service. In connection
\n\twith said incident, workmen had approached the Deputy Executive
\n\tEngineer Shri HK Patel, Taluka Development Officer Shri Ninama
\n\tSaheb, Taluka President Shri Ishwarbhai and Executive Engineer Shri
\n\tSompura Saheb, District President Shri Ishwarbhai Chavda etc. and
\n\thad requested to Supervisor Shri PM Patel to re-engage them but of
\n\tno avail. It was also alleged by workmen in their statement of claim
\n\tthat one Rahimbhai Nabubhai whose service was terminated after
\n\ttermination of their service was again engaged by petitioner
\n\testablishment and new workmen were also engaged and though they are
\n\tsenior workmen, they have not been re-engaged for work and at the
\n\ttime of terminating their service, legal procedure has not been
\n\tfollowed and retrenchment compensation has not been paid and,
\n\ttherefore, termination is violative of section 25-F,G and H of ID
\n\tAct, 1947 and, therefore, workmen were praying for reinstatement
\n\twith back wages for interim period before labour court.\n<\/p>\n
Before
\n\tlabour court, reply was filed by petitioner panchayat at Exh. 18
\n\tdenying averments made in statement of claim by workmen. According
\n\tto case of petitioner, these workmen were appointed by mechanic on
\n\tcontract basis on daily wage and they were not employees of
\n\tpetitioner panchayat and they have to carry out some repairing work
\n\ton Hangami Basis and, therefore, question of terminating their
\n\tservice does not arise.\n<\/p>\n
Before
\n\tlabour Court, vide Exh. 19, one Shri Jaydevbhai Ambaram Garoda,
\n\tworkman was examined and cross examined; vide Exh. 20, workman
\n\tKantiji was examined; vide Exh. 24, one workman Pashaji was
\n\texamined; vide Exh. 29, Vinodbhai Makwana was examined; vide Exh.
\n\t25, certain documents have been produced by Respondents and vide
\n\tExh. 30, closing purshis was filed by Respondents. Vide Exh. 32,
\n\twitness for establishment Shri Bababhai Ambaram was examined and
\n\tvide Exh. 35, witness Hariharbhai Chaudhari was examined and vide
\n\tExh. 42, witness for establishment Shri Nandlal Gokaldas was
\n\texamined. Vide Exh. 44, witness Haribhai Karshanbhai was examined
\n\tand thereafter, arguments of both parties were heard.In para 6,
\n\treasons have been recorded by labour court. Labour Court has framed
\n\tissue whether workman has completed continuous service as required
\n\tunder section 25B of ID Act, 1947 or not. Labour Court has
\n\tconsidered oral evidence of each workman, what has happened on site
\n\tat bore at Panchot on 31st
\n\tOctober, 1987 was considered by labour court. According to workmen,
\n\tthey were employed by one Nandubhai, even work was being entrusted
\n\tto them by said Nandubhai and for whatever days they were working,
\n\tthey were receiving wages from petitioner panchayat and presence
\n\tregister was also being prepared by Nandubhai and according to
\n\tinstructions \/ directions  given by Nandubhai, each workman was in
\n\tservice of petitioner panchayat for about eight years. Accordingly,
\n\teach workman has given evidence. Witness Kantiji Tejaji examined at
\n\tExh. 20 has deposed in his examination in chief that he was working
\n\tas mechanical helper. In his cross examination, it was deposed by
\n\thim that he was doing work of bore fitting and he was engaged by
\n\tAtmarambhai who was mechanic and his presence for 30 days was being
\n\tmarked and it was denied by him that his presence was not being
\n\tmarked after completion of work of repairing of one bore in-between
\n\twork of another bore is given to him. In his cross examination, it
\n\twas stated by him that certificate Exh.25\/1 is his certificate. It
\n\twas given pakka Exh. 26 and it was issued by Additional Assistant
\n\tEngineer,Taluka Panchayat, Patal Kuva, Mehsana on 3.1.85 to Shri
\n\tKantiji and he is working since four years on muster as daily wager
\n\ton mechanical side in mechanical gang. Similarly, in respect to
\n\tcertificate mark 25\/2 which was exhibited as Exh. 27, which was
\n\tissued by Additional Assistant Engineer in favour of Jaydevbhai
\n\tAmbaram on 3.1.85 and he is also working on mechanical side since
\n\tfour years as per said certificate. Similarly, as per Exh. 29, in
\n\tcase of Vinodbhai also, he was working for more than three years as
\n\tmechanical helper and doing work of repairing of bore. Similarly, at
\n\tExh. 24, Pashaji has deposed that since three years, he was serving
\n\tin the first party establishment as helper and he was getting work
\n\tfor 240 days meaning thereby for whole year and in his cross
\n\texaminatin, it was denied by him that he was receiving salary for
\n\tthe days for which he was working. Vide Exh. 26 and Exh. 27,
\n\tcertificate of working days and period of Kantiji Thakore and
\n\tJaydevbhai Garoda are produced. Witness for establishment Shri
\n\tBababhai Patel has deposed in his deposition at Exh. 32 that by
\n\tengaging rojamdar labourers, work of bore repairing was being done
\n\tand Patal Kuva of Mehsana Taluka were being maintained in that
\n\tmanner and rojamdar labourers who are continuing were being engaged
\n\tand if labourers are not coming, then, persons having knowledge of
\n\trepairing were being engaged as per their availability and labourers
\n\twere being engaged on muster and mechanic was marking presence of
\n\trojamdars and salary was being paid by Taluka Panchayat as per the
\n\twages prescribed by Government. It was also deposed by him that he
\n\tis aware of office record of workmen and they were coming for
\n\trepairing and were being called as per requirement but in his cross
\n\texamination, it was stated by him that he has worked as Deputy
\n\tExecutive Engineer in Mehsana from 16.10.1989 and prior to that, he
\n\twas in Chanasma Taluka Panchayat and he has no personal knowledge of
\n\tthe work prior to October, 1989. He has also no knowledge as to
\n\twhether workmen were being called for work by writing letter in 1987
\n\tor not. He has no personal knowledge that the workmen were
\n\tperforming work continuously since eight years, upto 1987. Another
\n\twitness for petitioner establishment Shri Harisinhbhai Chaubhari has
\n\tgiven deposition at Exh. 35 that he is working as Deputy Executive
\n\tEngineer Mehsana Taluka Panchayat Patal Kuva Branch and he is aware
\n\tof the record. He has also given same evidence that the workmen were
\n\tdaily wagers employed by Panchayat but they were not permanent
\n\temployees. However, this witness is not aware about fact that on
\n\twhich terms, these workmen were employed by petitioner. Muster Roll
\n\tof workmen are in custody of petitioner panchayat and said witness
\n\tHarisinh was ready and willing to produce on record before labour
\n\tcourt but ultimately muster roll were not produced by petitioner
\n\tbefore labour court. It is necessary to note one important admission
\n\tmade by witness Harisinh in his evidence at Exh.35 that each workman
\n\thas completed 240 days continuous service within one year and
\n\twitness Nandlal at Exh. 42 has also admitted in his examination in
\n\tchief that workmen were being engaged by petitioner panchayat on
\n\tmuster and each month, they were working for more than 10 to 15 days
\n\tand some time, they were being continued for entire month. He also
\n\tadmitted that after termination of service of these workmen in 1987,
\n\tnew daily wagers have been recruited\/employed by petitioner
\n\tpanchayat. It is also admitted by said witness that these workmen
\n\twere working with panchayat since last three to four years. However,
\n\thow many persons have been taken on daily wage basis for work at
\n\tPatal Kuva for repairing bore, for that, he was having no personal
\n\tknowledge. Labour Court, Kalol has considered this oral evidence of
\n\tworkmen as well as evidence of each witness of petitioner and has
\n\talso considered certificates produced by workmen,admitted by witness
\n\tfor petitioner panchayat and after considering all this evidence on
\n\trecord, labour court has come to conclusion that each workman has
\n\tcompleted 240 days continuous service with petitioner panchayat and
\n\tafter considering decision of this Court in
\n\tcase of Moti Ceramics Ind. v. Jivuben Rupa and others<\/a> [2000 (2) GLR
\n\t1558] = 2000 (1) CLR 126, labour court has come to conclusion that
\n\tpetitioner being taluka panchayat, is a public body and workmen were
\n\temployed by petitioner on muster roll as daily wagers and workmen
\n\tworked since many years. That fact has been proved before labour
\n\tcourt by oral and documentary evidence led before labour court and
\n\taccordingly labour court has come to conclusion that workmen have
\n\tcompleted continuous service of 240 days as per admission made by
\n\twitness for petitioner and relevant record was not produced by
\n\tpetitioner panchayat before labour court. In all, four witnesses
\n\twere examined by petitioner panchayat before labour court and one
\n\twitness has shown willingness in his cross examination that he will
\n\tproduce muster roll and yet, that muster roll has not been produced
\n\tbefore labour court by petitioner and, therefore, labour court has
\n\tconsidered two aspects, one is entire oral evidence of each workmen
\n\tand certificates as referred to above and non production of relevant
\n\trecord in respect of workmen namely muster roll pay register etc.
\n\tand, therefore, in absence of such documents, labour court has
\n\trightly drawn adverse inference against petitioner and has rightly
\n\tcome to conclusion that workmen have completed 240 days continuous
\n\tservice within preceding 12 months from date of termination in light
\n\tof certificates admitted by witness for petitioner and workmen have
\n\tperformed continuous duties as per section 25B of ID Act, 1947.
\n\tConsidering deposition of workmen on oath before labour court
\n\twherein it was deposed by workmen that before terminating their
\n\tservice, petitioner has not given any notice, notice pay in lieu
\n\tthereof and retrenchment compensation as well as deposition of
\n\twitness for petitioner Shri Nandlal at Exh. 42 wherein it was
\n\tdeposed by him that it is correct that after terminating service of
\n\tworkmen, on their place, other persons were working and that while
\n\tterminating service of present workmen, petitioner has not given
\n\tnotice or notice pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation
\n\thas also not been paid to them, labour court has come to conclusion
\n\tin light of evidence on record that in terminating service of
\n\trespondents workmen, petitioner has committed breach of section
\n\t25-F, G and H of ID Act, 1947. Labour Court has also observed that
\n\tthe nature of work which was being performed by workmen remained
\n\tcontinue and such work has been given by petitioner at present on
\n\tcontract basis and, therefore, labour court has come to conclusion
\n\tthat such termination is contrary to section 25F, G and H of ID Act,
\n\t1947. Therefore, labour court has set aside termination order of
\n\tworkmen dated 31st
\n\tOctober, 1987.\n<\/p>\n
While
\n\tconsidering question of back wages, labour court has considered
\n\tquestion of gainful employment. Dispute has been raised in the year
\n\t1988. Labour Court has considered long delay in deciding reference
\n\tof about fifteen years and considering all such aspects, labour
\n\tcourt thought it fit to grant lumsum amount in lieu of back wages
\n\tbecause petitioner panchayat is a statutory body. Accordingly,
\n\tlabour court granted relief of reinstatement
\n\twith continuity of service to each workman on original post on same
\n\tterms and conditions with lumsum amount of Rs.15000.00 in lieu of
\n\tback wages, by way of compensation, for interim period of about
\n\tfifteen years.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave considered reasoning given by labour court. I have also
\n\tconsidered submissions made by both learned advocates. I have also
\n\texamined matter in detail. I have also considered evidence of four
\n\twitnesses for petitioner as well as certificates at Exh. 26 and 27
\n\tproduced on record and admitted by witness for petitioner. I have
\n\talso considered one admission made by witness for petitioner Shri
\n\tHarisinh Chaudhari who was examined at Exh. 35 and has admitted that
\n\teach workman has completed continuous service of 240 days.
\n\tTherefore, considering such fact finding given by labour court for
\n\tdeciding factual aspect, normally this court cannot disturb such
\n\tfact finding unless it is successfully established before this court
\n\tthat such fact finding given by labour court is contrary to evidence
\n\ton record and\/or perverse. In case before hand, learned Advocate Mr.
\n\tRC Jani for petitioner has not been able to establish that these
\n\tfindings of fact recorded by labour court are perverse and contrary
\n\tto evidence on record. Completion of 240 days continuous service was
\n\testablished before labour court on the basis of evidence of workmen
\n\tas well as certificates at Exh. 26 and 27 and evidence of four
\n\twitnesses for petitioner as discussed above. Adverse inference was
\n\tdrawn by labour court against petitioner because witness for
\n\tpetitioner admitted before labour court that relevant documents are
\n\tin possession of petitioner and same will be produced before labour
\n\tcourt  but subsequently, such documents were not produced by
\n\tpetitioner before labour court. Therefore, considering such finding
\n\tof fact recorded by labour court after appreciating oral and
\n\tdocumentary evidence on record, according to my opinion, labour
\n\tcourt has not committed any error which would require interference
\n\tof this court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the
\n\tConstitution of India. Labour court has rightly granted lumsum
\n\tamount of Rs.15000.00 to each workman in lieu of back wages for
\n\tinterim period of about fifteen years while keeping in mind relevant
\n\tfactors  and, for that, labour court has not committed any error
\n\twhich would require interference of this court in exercise of powers
\n\tunder Article 227 of Constitution of India. Normally this court
\n\tcannot disturb such finding of fact decided by labour court in
\n\texercise of powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
\n\tFindings given by labour court that the termination of service of
\n\tworkmen is violative of section 25F, G and H are also based upon
\n\tappreciation of facts and, therefore, labour court has rightly
\n\tdecided such aspects.\n<\/p>\n
\t[See :\n<\/p>\n
\tRameshkumar
\n\tversus State of Haryana,
\n\t2010 (1) SCALE 432; Harjinder
\n\tSingh versus Punjab State Warehousing Corporation,
\n\t2010 (1) SCALE page 613;\n<\/p>\n
\tKrishnan, 2010 (2) SCALE page 848].\n<\/p>\n
Recently
\n\tapex court has considered scope of Article 227 of Constitution of
\n\tIndia in case of State
\n\tof Haryana v. Manoj Kumar<\/a>
\n\treported in 2010
\n\tAIR SCW 1990
\n\tdecided on 9th
\n\tMarch
\n\t2010.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe relevant Para
\n\t22 to 29
\n\tare quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n
 22.
\n\t\tThe appellants urged that the jurisdiction of the High Court under
\n\t\tArticle 227 is very limited and the High Court, while exercising
\n\t\tthe jurisdiction under Article 227, has to ensure that the courts
\n\t\tbelow work within the bounds of their authority.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t23.
\n\t\tMore than half a century ago, the Constitution Bench of this court
\n\t\tin Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v. Commissioner of Hills Division
\n\t\tand Appeals, Assam & Others AIR<\/a> 1958 SC 398 settled that power
\n\t\tunder Article 227 is limited to seeing that the courts below
\n\t\tfunction within the limit of its authority or jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t24.
\n\t\tThis court placed reliance on Nagendra Nath’s case in a subsequent
\n\t\tjudgment in Nibaran Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu AIR<\/a> 1963 SC
\n\t\t1895. The court observed that jurisdiction conferred under Article
\n\t\t227 is not by any means appellate in its nature for correcting
\n\t\terrors in the decisions of subordinate courts or tribunals but is
\n\t\tmerely a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within
\n\t\tthe bounds of their authority.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t25.
\n\t\tThis court had an occasion to examine this aspect of the matter in
\n\t\tthe case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Others<\/a> (1983) 4 SCC
\n\t\t566 . The court observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“The
\nsupervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article
\n227 of the Constitution is limited “to seeing that an inferior
\nCourt or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority,”
\nand not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much
\nless an error of law. for this case there was, in our opinion, no
\nerror of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record.
\nThere was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to
\nexercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of
\nnatural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in
\nconsonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the
\nsupervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as
\nan Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the
\nevidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or
\ntribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the
\ndecision.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThis
\n\tcourt again clearly reiterated the legal position in Laxmikant
\n\tRevchand Bhojwani & Another v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi<\/a>
\n\t(1995) 6 SCC 576. The court again cautioned that the High Court
\n\tunder Article 227 of the Constitution cannot assume unlimited
\n\tprerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions.
\n\tIt must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and
\n\tflagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where
\n\tgrave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.
\n\tA three-Judge Bench of this court in Rena Drego (Mrs.) v. Lalchand
\n\tSoni & Others<\/a> (1998) 3 SCC 341 again abundantly made it clear
\n\tthat the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact
\n\trecorded by the subordinate court or the tribunal while exercising
\n\tits jurisdiction under Article 227. Its function is limited to
\n\tseeing that the subordinate court or the tribunal functions within
\n\tthe limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact
\n\tby examining the evidence and re-appreciating it.\n<\/p>\n
\t28.In
\n\tVirendra Kashinath Ravat & Another v. Vinayak N. Joshi &
\n\tOthers<\/a> (1999) 1 SCC 47 this court held that the limited power under
\n\tArticle 227 cannot be invoked except for ensuring that the
\n\tsubordinate courts function within its limits.\n<\/p>\n
29.
\n\tThis court over 50 years has been consistently observing that
\n\tlimited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be
\n\texercised by interfering with the findings of fact and set aside the
\n\tjudgments of the courts below on merit.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tview of above observations made by this court while discussing
\n\tevidence on record and reasoning given by labour court, according to
\n\tmy opinion, no interference of this court is required under Article
\n\t227 of Constitution of India. Hence, there is no substance in this
\n\tpetition and, therefore, this petition is dismissed with no order as
\n\tto costs. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, shall stand
\n\tvacated
\n\tforthwith.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis directed to petitioner panchayat to implement award passed by
\n\tLabour Court Kalol in Reference (LCK) NO. 205 of 1988 dated 31st
\n\tJuly, 2003 published on 4th
\n\tAugust, 2003 within one month from date of receipt of copy of this
\n\torder.\n<\/p>\n
(H.K.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 Deputy vs Vinod on 10 May, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/1006\/2004 18\/ 18 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1006 of 2004 ========================================================= DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER – Petitioner(s) Versus VINOD S. MAKWANA & 3 – Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : […]<\/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-37691","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDeputy vs Vinod on 10 May, 2010 - 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\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Deputy vs Vinod on 10 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-16T15:16:16+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\\\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Deputy vs Vinod on 10 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-16T15:16:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3991,\"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\\\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Deputy vs Vinod on 10 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-16T15:16:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Deputy vs Vinod on 10 May, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Deputy vs Vinod on 10 May, 2010 - 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\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Deputy vs Vinod on 10 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-16T15:16:16+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\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Deputy vs Vinod on 10 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-16T15:16:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010"},"wordCount":3991,"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\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010","name":"Deputy vs Vinod on 10 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-16T15:16:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-vinod-on-10-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Deputy vs Vinod on 10 May, 2010"}]},{"@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\/37691","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=37691"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37691\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37691"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37691"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37691"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}