Case: Ishwarlal Mohanlal Thakkar Vs. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd

the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court.” It was also held that- “High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Art.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.” Thus it is clear, that the High Court has to exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution judiciously and to further the ends of justice.In the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation [(2010) 3 SCC 192] , this Court held that, “20……In view of the above discussion, we hold that the learned Single Judge of the High Court committed serious jurisdictional error and unjustifiably interfered with the award of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court with compensation of Rs.87,582 by entertaining a wholly unfounded plea that the appellant was appointed in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the Regulation.” 10. The power of judicial review of the High Court has to be alluded to here to decide whether or not the High Court has erred in setting aside the judgment and order of the labour court. In the case of Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors. [(2012) 5 SCC 443] , this Court referred to the position held on the power of judicial review in the case of Reid v. Secretary of State for Scotland [(1999) 1 All ER 481], wherein it is stated that :- “Judicial review involves a challenge to the legal validity of the decision. It does not allow the court of review to examine the evidence with a view to forming its own view about the substantial merits of the case. It may be that the tribunal whose decision is being challenged has done something which it had no lawful authority to do. It may have abused or misused the authority which it had. It may have departed from the procedures which either by statute or at common law as a matter of fairness it ought to have observed. As regards the decisions itself it may be found to be perverse or irrational or grossly disproportionate to what was required. Or the decision may be found to be erroneous in respect of a legal deficiency, as for example, through the absence of evidence, or of sufficient evidence, to support it, or through account being taken of irrelevant matter, or through a failure for any reason to take account of a relevant matter, or through some misconstruction of the terms of the statutory provision which the decision maker is required to apply. But while the evidence may have to be explored in order to see if the decision is vitiated by such legal deficiencies it is perfectly clear that in case of review, as distinct from an ordinary appeal, the court may not set about forming its own preferred view of evidence.” Therefore, in view of the above judgments we have to hold that the High Court has committed a grave error by setting aside the findings recorded on the points of dispute in the Award of the labour court. A grave miscarriage of justice has been committed against the appellant as the respondent should have accepted the birth certificate as a conclusive proof of age, the same being an entry in the public record as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the birth certificate mentioned the appellant’s date of birth as 27.6.1940, which is the documentary evidence. Therefore, there was no reason to deny him the benefit of the same, instead the respondent-board prematurely terminated the services of the appellant by taking his date of birth as 27.6.1937 which is contrary to the facts and evidence on record. This date of birth is highly improbable as well as impossible as the appellant’s elder brother was born on 27.1.1937 as per the School Leaving Certificate, and there cannot be a mere 5 months difference between the birth of his elder brother and himself. Therefore, it is apparent that the School Leaving Certificate cannot be relied upon by the respondent-board and instead, the birth certificate issued by the BMC which is the documentary evidence should have been relied upon by the respondent. Further, the date of birth is mentioned as 27.6.1940 in the LIC insurance policy on the basis of which the premium was paid by the respondent to the Life Insurance Corporation on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, it is only just and proper that the respondent should have relied on the birth certificate issued by the BMC on the face of all these discrepancies as the same was issued on the order of the JMFC. The High Court has wrongly held that the appellant was estopped from raising the issue of his date of birth as he had signed the records in 1978 but he raised this issue only in 1987. The reason for this is clear that the respondent came out with a circular in 1987 that those employees who wished to change their date of birth in the records may do so by furnishing the necessary birth certificate and further, they can do it before they become 50 years of age. The appellant had not attained 50 years of age at the time he raised the contention regarding mistake in his date of birth. The High Court has not applied its mind in setting aside the judgment and award of the labour court in exercise of its power of judicial review and superintendence as it is patently clear that the labour court has not committed any error of jurisdiction or passed a judgment without sufficient evidence. The impugned judgement and order of the High Court deserves to be set aside and the award and judgment of the labour court be restored.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]9. We find the judgment and award of the labour court well-reasoned and based on facts and evidence on record. The High Court has erred in its exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to annul the findings of the labour court in its Award as it is well settled law that the High Court cannot exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution as an appellate court or re-appreciate evidence and record its findings on the contentious points. Only if there is a serious error of law or the findings recorded suffer from error apparent on record, can the High Court quash the order of a lower court. The Labour Court in the present case has satisfactorily exercised its original jurisdiction and properly appreciated the facts and legal evidence on record and given a well reasoned order and answered the points of dispute in favour of the appellant. The High Court had no reason to interfere with the same as the Award of the labour court was based on sound and cogent reasoning, which has served the ends of justice.It is relevant to mention that in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329] , with regard to the limitations of the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227, it was held in para 49power of interference under Art.227 is to be kept to a minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice 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 Highwas also heldCourts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Art.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 toit is clear, that the High Court has to exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution judiciously and to further the ends of justice.In the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation [(2010) 3 SCC 192] , this Court heldview of the above discussion, we hold that the learned Single Judge of the High Court committed serious jurisdictional error and unjustifiably interfered with the award of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court with compensation of Rs.87,582 by entertaining a wholly unfounded plea that the appellant was appointed in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the Regulation.The power of judicial review of the High Court has to be alluded to here to decide whether or not the High Court has erred in setting aside the judgment and order of the labour court. In the case of Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors. [(2012) 5 SCC 443] , this Court referred to the position held on the power of judicial review in the case of Reid v. Secretary of State for Scotland [(1999) 1 All ER 481], wherein it is stated thatreview involves a challenge to the legal validity of the decision. It does not allow the court of review to examine the evidence with a view to forming its own view about the substantial merits of the case. It may be that the tribunal whose decision is being challenged has done something which it had no lawful authority to do. It may have abused or misused the authority which it had. It may have departed from the procedures which either by statute or at common law as a matter of fairness it ought to have observed. As regards the decisions itself it may be found to be perverse or irrational or grossly disproportionate to what was required. Or the decision may be found to be erroneous in respect of a legal deficiency, as for example, through the absence of evidence, or of sufficient evidence, to support it, or through account being taken of irrelevant matter, or through a failure for any reason to take account of a relevant matter, or through some misconstruction of the terms of the statutory provision which the decision maker is required to apply. But while the evidence may have to be explored in order to see if the decision is vitiated by such legal deficiencies it is perfectly clear that in case of review, as distinct from an ordinary appeal, the court may not set about forming its own preferred view ofin view of the above judgments we have to hold that the High Court has committed a grave error by setting aside the findings recorded on the points of dispute in the Award of the labour court. A grave miscarriage of justice has been committed against the appellant as the respondent should have accepted the birth certificate as a conclusive proof of age, the same being an entry in the public record as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the birth certificate mentioned thedate of birth as 27.6.1940, which is the documentary evidence. Therefore, there was no reason to deny him the benefit of the same, instead the respondent-board prematurely terminated the services of the appellant by taking his date of birth as 27.6.1937 which is contrary to the facts and evidence on record. This date of birth is highly improbable as well as impossible as theelder brother was born on 27.1.1937 as per the School Leaving Certificate, and there cannot be a mere 5 months difference between the birth of his elder brother and himself. Therefore, it is apparent that the School Leaving Certificate cannot be relied upon by the respondent-board and instead, the birth certificate issued by the BMC which is the documentary evidence should have been relied upon by the respondent. Further, the date of birth is mentioned as 27.6.1940 in the LIC insurance policy on the basis of which the premium was paid by the respondent to the Life Insurance Corporation on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, it is only just and proper that the respondent should have relied on the birth certificate issued by the BMC on the face of all these discrepancies as the same was issued on the order of the JMFC. The High Court has wrongly held that the appellant was estopped from raising the issue of his date of birth as he had signed the records in 1978 but he raised this issue only in 1987. The reason for this is clear that the respondent came out with a circular in 1987 that those employees who wished to change their date of birth in the records may do so by furnishing the necessary birth certificate and further, they can do it before they become 50 years of age. The appellant had not attained 50 years of age at the time he raised the contention regarding mistake in his date of birth. The High Court has not applied its mind in setting aside the judgment and award of the labour court in exercise of its power of judicial review and superintendence as it is patently clear that the labour court has not committed any error of jurisdiction or passed a judgment without sufficient evidence. The impugned judgement and order of the High Court deserves to be set aside and the award and judgment of the labour court be restored.