é; mgi-E am m 0/9 £W IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. é 0Jc wOF 2010 V (L) pETITIONER The Sub-Area Manager, SECL, Laxman Project, Post Kusmunda Project, Distt. Korba VERSUS /1. The Secretary, Central India Labour Association (HMS) Qr. No. B/ 1, Vikas Nagar Colony, RESPONDENTS Post Kusmunda Project, Distt. Korba(c.‘- a.) 2. The Regional Labour Commissioner (C) Jabalpur.(/27._pa) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226(227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OEINDIA / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 6904 OF 2010 Petitioner The Sub Area Manager, S.E.C.L., Laxman Project, Kusmunda. Versus The Secretary, Central India Labour Association (HMS)‘ & Another WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present :— Shri P.S.Koshy, Advocate for the petitioner. Responden‘ ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 29““ day of November, 2010) The instant petition is basically under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Iegality and validity of the award dated 11.5.2010 passed by- the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - Cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur in CGIT/LC/R/21 1/93 (Annexure P-1 ). The brief facts in nutshell are that the industrial dispute was raised by the respondent No.1 on 2.4.1993 (Annexure P-2), which was responded by the management (the petitioner herein)~on 13.4.1993. The question raised therein was : “Whether the management of Laxman Project is justified in not giving the excavation Grade-II to Shri Laxmi Prasad Yadav and Shri Jaswant Singh Shovel Operator w.e.f. 1992 ? If not, to What relief .the workmen concerned are entitled to ?" The grounds, raised in this petition, to invoke supervisory jurisdictio n of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is that the statement of the management/petitioner that the word Excavator Operator Grade-II Excv. Cat. “B” was a clerical mistake in lieu of Cat. “C". Secondly, the respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal nor examined any witnesses to contradict the above V43 statement of the management. Thus, there is an error apparent on the face of record and there was irregularity and impropriety in the award passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal after framing the issue, considered ail the facts, examined all the documents including the corrigendum dated 12.3.1991 (Annexure P—9), wherein it was mentioned that the words “Shove! Operator Grade—Ii -Excv. Cat-C” should be read as “Excavator Operator Grade—ll Excv. Cat-B". 5. The Tribunal having considered all the facts, observed as under: “On the basis of the discussion made above, it is clear that the management has failed to establish that there was clerical mistake in the corrigendum whereby the workmen are entitled to the post of Excavator Grade-ll in Category “B” w.e.f. 9.3.92. It appears that the action of the management is not justified. Accordingly, the management is directed to regularize the aforesaid two workmen as shovel operator Grade-II category ”B” with effect from 9.3.92 with seniority as shovel operator alongwith back wages with effect from the same date within three months from the receipt of award. This issue and the reference are thus answered " Accordingly, it was held that the management has failed to establish that there was a clerical mistake in the corrigendum whereby the workmen are entitled for the post of Excavator Grade-II in Category “B" w.e.f. 9.3.1992. The management was accordingly directed to regularize the workmen as “Shovel Operator Grade-ll Category ‘B’ ” w.e.f from 9.3.1992 with seniority and back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court x to the Office order dated 9.3.1991/(Annexure P-8), wherein it is clearly mentioned that Sri Jaswant Singh, S/o. Swarna Singh and Sri v Vt LaXmi Pd. Yadav, S/o. Bhagirathi, would be regularized to the post Shovel Operator Grade-H Excv. Cat.”C", which was corrected thereafter by corrigendum dated 12.3.1991 (Annexure P-) making 9 clear that “Shovel Operator Grade-H Excv. Cat.’C’ “ should be read as “Excavator Operator Grade-ll Excv. Cat.’B’-" and remaining will be unaltered. No other document has been produced. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, i do not find any merit in the case to invoke supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil’ holding that Article 226 & 227 stand on substantially different footings, laid down the principle on exercise of . High Court jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. “49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the fol/owing principles on the exercise of High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated: (a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by the High Court under these two articles is also different. (b) In any event, a petition under Article 22 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above. (c) High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a court of appeal over the orders of the court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative 1 (2010) 8 scc 329 7 . statutory mode of redressa/ has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Coun‘. (d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of their power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the rinciples laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh and the principles in Waryam Singh have been repeated/y fol/owed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various ther decisions of this Court. (e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh, fol/owed in subsequent cases, the High Court in ‘ exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and courts subordinate to it, ”within the bounds of their authority”. (I? In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. (g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent erversity in the orders of the tribunals and courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of nature/justice have been flouted. (h) In exercise of its power of superintendence igh Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors f law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible View. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised. (r) The High Court’s power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and therefore abridgment by a constitutional amendment is also very doubtful. a) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate provision, like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court’s power under Article 227. At the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment does 'not correspondingly expand the High Court’s jurisdiction of superintendence under Article‘227. p o p H o (k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu. (l) On a proper appreciation of the Wide and unfettered power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this article Is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice wrthrn its territory (m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bringit into any disrepute. The power of interference under this article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel ofjustice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court (n) This reserve and exceptional power ofjudICIal Intervention is not to be exercrsed/ust for grant of relief in rndrvrdual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration ‘of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicia discipline pointed out above. (o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality. Applying the well settled principles of law, as aforestated to the acts of the case, the petitioner has failed to make out a cas f e warranting interference by this Court with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is d ismissed summarily. Sdl— Satish K. Agnihotril Judge ashok l w ones