WP(C) No.7703/2009 Page 1 of 4 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7703/2009 Date of Decision : 08.05.2009 Vijay Mohan Vijay ……Petitioner Through : Nemo Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.XVIII …… Respondents Through : Nemo CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? NO V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral) 1. None for the petitioner despite second call. 2. The present writ petition is against the award dated 28.11.2008 passed by the Labour Court in ID No.842/06/01 in case titled Vijay Mohan Vijay Vs. the Management of M/s. Precision Pipe & Profiles Co. Ltd. by virtue of which the learned Labour Court held that the petitioner was not able to prove that he was a workman under the Section of 2(s) of the ID Act and accordingly issues no.2 and 3 were not dealt with as they had become redundant. 3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award and challenged the same. 4. I have gone through the award of the writ petition. WP(C) No.7703/2009 Page 2 of 4 5. Briefly stated that the facts of the case are that a reference was made on 15.12.2000 in the following terms: “Whether the services of Sh. Vijay Mohan Vijay have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?” 6. In pursuance to the aforesaid reference the notices were issued by the Labour Court to the parties. The petitioner filed this statement of hearing contending that he was employed by the respondent/management w.e.f. 10.7.1981 and he was getting a salary of Rs.9360/- p.m. apart from Rs.1540/- as house rent, Rs.800/- as transport allowance and thus his total emoluments were Rs.11,700/-. It is alleged by him that without any reason for termination, he was charge sheeted and thereafter his services were dispensed with on 09.05.2000 without complying with the principles of natural justice. 7. The petitioner is purported to have sent a demand notice dated 06.06.2000 and thereafter the proceedings before the conciliation officer were initiated and since it did not yield any fruitful result. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, the following three issues were framed:- (1) whether the claimant was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act? OPM (2) whether the claimant himself abandoned the job by remaining absent w.e.f. 09.05.2000? OPM (3) as per the terms of reference. 9. The parties adduced their respective evidence and after this, the ld.Labour Court came to a finding that the claimant was WP(C) No.7703/2009 Page 3 of 4 unable to prove that he was workman within the definition of Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act. As against this, the management witness Vijay Menon, MW-2 and other witness Y.K. Sharma, MW-1 had entered into the witness box and justified that the petitioner was an Administrative Officer and not a workman. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, a finding was handed over that the petitioner was not a workman as no proof was given by him and the other issues were not dealt with. The learned Labour Court has referred to various authorities while dealing with the question of the status of the petitioner as to whether he was a workman or not. The perusal of the award shows that there is a proper compliance with the principles of natural justice so far as the petitioner is concerned. The onus essentially was on the workman namely the petitioner to establish the workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act which he has failed to discharge within a limit. 10. This Court in exercise of its power of judicial review cannot sit as a Court of appeal and then come at a finding of its own and substitute the same in place of finding of the Court below. In Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the scope of judicial review in following words: “Judicial review, not being an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was arrived at, the court, while exercising the power of judicial review, must remain conscious of the fact that if the decision has been arrived at by the administrative authority after following the principles established by law and the rules of natural justice and the individual has received a WP(C) No.7703/2009 Page 4 of 4 fair treatment to meet the case against him, the court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the administrative authority on a matter which fell squarely within the sphere of jurisdiction of that authority.” 11. In the light of the aforesaid legal position, this Court cannot sit as Court of an appeal and re-appreciate the evidence. I do not find any infirmity, perversity or violation of principles of natural justice which may warrant any appearance with the award. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. V.K. SHALI, J. MAY 08, 2009 gm