Civil Appeal No 6346 of 1983
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 18th January 1980 of the Delhi High Court in LPA No 62 of 1973
DN Vohra Anil Kumar Gupta and Miss Kailash Mehta for the Appellant
SN Bhandari and Arunesewar Gupta for the Respondent
The Order of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY J Special leave granted
Sadhu Ram was a probationer Bus Conductor whose services were terminated on 7th September 1967 by the respondent the Delhi Transport Corporation
On the failure of conciliation proceedings the Conciliation Officer Delhi submitted his report to the Delhi Administration under section 12 5 of the Industrial Disputes Act whereupon the Delhi Administration referred the following dispute to the Presiding Officer Labour Court Delhi for adjudication Whether the termination of service of Shri Sadhu Ram conductor is illegal and unjustified and if so what directions are necessary in this respect
The Union on behalf of the workman and the management appeared before the Presiding Officer Labour Court
On behalf of the management a contention was raised that the workman had not raised any demand with the management and that there was therefore no industrial dispute
The reference was accordingly claimed to be incompetent
The Labour Court overruled the contention holding as a fact that the Union had raised a valid demand with the management
On merits the Labour Court gave the following finding I therefore hold that the termination order in respect of this workman is illegal and mala fide and that amounts to colourable exercise of power Consequently the management was directed to reinstate the workman with effect from 8th September 1967 with the full back wages and benefits
The management invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi under article 226 of the Constitution questioning the award of the Labour Court
The High Court went into a learned discussion on what was an Industrial Dispute and what was a jurisdictional fact a discussion 727 which in our opinion was an entirely unnecessary exercise
In launching into a discussion on these questions needlessly the High Court appeared to forget the basic fact that the Labour Court had given two categoric findings i that the Union had raised a demand with the management and ii that the termination of the services of the workman was a mala fide and colourable exercise of power
Delving into the evidence as if it was an appellate Court and reappreciating the evidence the High Court thought that one of the documents upon which the Labour Court had relied was a suspicious document and the High Court went on to find that no demand had been raised and there was no Industrial Dispute which could be properly referred by the Government for adjudication
On those findings a learned single judge of the High Court quashed the Award of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court
The decision of the learned single judge was affirmed by a Division Bench
The workman has come before us under article 136 of the Constitution
We are afraid the High Court misdirected itself
The jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution is truly wide but for that very reason it has to be exercised with great circumspection
It is not for the High Court to constitute itself into an appellate court over Tribunals constituted under special legislations to resolve disputes of a kind qualitatively different from ordinary civil disputes and to readjudicate upon questions of fact decided by those Tribunals
That the questions decided pertain to jurisdictional facts does not entitle the High Court to interfere with the findings on jurisdictional facts which the Tribunal is well competent to decide
Where the circumstances indicate that the Tribunal has snatched at jurisdiction the High Court may be justified in interfering
But where the Tribunal gets jurisdiction only if a reference is made and it is therefore impossible ever to say that the Tribunal has clutched at jurisdiction we do not think that it was proper for the High Court to substitute its judgment for that of the Labour Court and hold that the workman had raised no demand with the management
There was a conciliation proceeding the conciliation had failed and the Conciliation Officer had so reported to the Government
The Government was justified in thinking that there was an industrial dispute and referring it to the Labour Court
The High Court appeared to think that the decision of this Court in the Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd vs The Industrial 728 Tribunal of Gujarat1 justified its conclusion that the failure of the conciliation proceedings and the report of the Conciliation Officer to the Government were not sufficient to sustain a finding that there was an industrial dispute
This was also what was urged by the learned counsel for the respondents
The High Court was in error in so thinking
In Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd vs The Industrial Tribunal of Gujarat1 the question really was about the precise scope of the reference made by the Government for adjudication
Throughout it appeared that the only reference that the Government could have made related to the payment of retrenchment compensation which alone was the subject matter of dispute between the parties
The conciliation which failed had also concerned itself with the question of payment of retrenchment compensation and in their claims before the management the workmen had requested for payment of retrenchment compensation and raised no dispute regarding reinstatement
It was in those circumstances that the court held that there was no industrial dispute regarding reinstatement
We do not see how Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd vs The Industrial Tribunal of Gujarat can be of any assistance to the respondents
Nor do we think that it was right for the High Court to interfere with the award of a Labour Court under article 226 on a mere technicality
Article 226 is a device to secure and advance justice and not otherwise
In the result we allow the appeal set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the award of the Presiding Officer Labour Court
HSK Appeal allowed


Summary:
The services of the appellant workman were terminated by the Management of the respondent
On a report from the Conciliation Officer the Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court
The Management contended that the workman had not raised any demand with the Management and that there was therefore no industrial dispute
The Labour Court found as a fact that the Union had raised a valid demand with the Management and that the termination of services of the workman was illegal and mala fide
The Management invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226
A Single Judge of the High Court quashed the Award of the Labour Court on the finding that no demand had been raised and there was no industrial dispute which could be properly referred by the Government for adjudication
The judgment of the Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench
Allowing the appeal  HELD The High Court was not right in interfering with the Award of the Labour Court under article 226 on a mere technicality 728 E The jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution is truly wide but for that very reason it has to be exercised with great circumspection
It is not for the High Court to constitute itself into an appellate court over Tribunals constituted under special legislations to resolve disputes of a kind qualitatively different from ordinary civil disputes and to readjudicate upon questions of fact decided by those Tribunals
That the questions decided pertain to jurisdictional facts does not entitle the High Court to interfere with the findings on jurisdictional facts which the Tribunal is well competent to decide
727 D F In the instant case there was a conciliation proceeding the conciliation had failed and the Conciliation Officer had so reported to the Government
The Government was justified in thinking that there was an industrial dispute and referring it to the Labour Court
The High Court s discussion on what was an industrial dispute and what was a jurisdictional fact was an entirely unnecessary exercise
727 G F 728 A B Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd vs The Industrial Tribunal of Gujarat 19681 SCR 515 explained and distinguished