Case title: Director General, Delhi Doordharshan Kendra v. Mohd. Shahbaz Khan, Tej Pal Manohar Paswan, Danvir Hans Raj.
Case no: LPA 242/2024, LPA 243/2024, LPA 244/2024, LPA 245/2024, LPA 246/2024,
Dated on: 22nd March, 2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Rekha Palli and Hon’ble DR. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain.
Facts of the case:
Appeals filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent LPA 242/2024 & other connected appeals to assail five similar orders dated 12.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of Writ Petitions. Vide the impugned order dated 12.12.2023, the learned Single Judge has rejected the Appellant’s challenge to the award dated 15.10.2007 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal (Tribunal), wherein the learned tribunal after holding that the termination of the respondents’ service by the Appellant was illegal, has directed the Appellant to reinstate them with 25% back wage.
Contentions of the appellant:
The learned Tribunal as also the learned Single Judge have failed to appreciate that the respondents were never employed with the Appellant but had in fact, been engaged by one M/S Navnidh Carriers who was engaged by the appellant on 31.07.1998, to provide manpower services as and when required. The learned Tribunal has not examined as to whether the Respondents had completed 240 days of continuous service in the year immediately preceding their termination, which aspect the learned Single Judge also over looked. Instead of placing the onus to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship on the respondents, the learned Single Judge has wrongly shifted the said onus on the Appellant.
Contentions of the respondent:
The learned Tribunal has, as a matter of fact, found that the respondents had been working with the Appellant/Organization much prior to 31.07.1998, i.e; the date when the appellant had, with malafide intention, engaged M/S Navnidh Carriers for providing manpower services and therefore, it was evident that the respondents had initially been engaged by the appellant itself. The experience certificate dated 13.07.1999 issued by the appellant to one of the respondents wherein it has been categorically stated that he had been working with the appellant as a casual labourer since July 1997 and was an honest and hardworking worker. The appellant admittedly does not have any licence to engage workmen through a contractor as is mandated under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (the CLRA Act), it is evident that the respondents were to be treated as employees of the appellant itself. He, therefore, prays that the appeals be dismissed.
Legal provisions:
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (the CLRA Act)- regulated the employment of contract labor in certain establishments and provides for its abolition in certain circumstances. Article 226 of the Constitution- gives the High court the power to issue orders, directions and writs to any person or the authority including the Govt for the enforcement of Fundamental rights.
Issue:
Whether Respondents were engaged by the Appellant and were illegally terminated? When can Writ Court interfere with the factual findings of fact of Labour/Industrial Tribunal?
Courts judgement and analysis:
The learned Tribunal as also the learned Single Judge, after taking into account the gate passes as also experience letter dated 13.07.1999 issued by the appellant to one of the respondents have come to a conclusion that the respondents were employed with the appellant/ organisation and had been illegally terminated. Both the learned Single Judge as also the learned Tribunal found upon appreciation of evidence that the purported contract by the appellant in favor of M/s Navnidh Carriers was sham and an attempt to conceal the engagement of the respondents with the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to give any explanation whatsoever for the issuance of the said experience certificate if the respondent namely Mohd. Shahbaz Khan was not their employee. The Appellant did not have any license, as mandated under the CLRA Act, 1970, to engage workmen through a contractor, hence it is evident that they were directly engaged by the appellant. In the light of these categoric factual findings by the learned Tribunal, which cannot, in any manner, said to be perverse or contrary to the evidence lead before the learned Tribunal, we are of the view that it was neither open for the learned Single Judge to interfere with these findings in exercise of its writ jurisdiction nor is it open for this Court to examine these questions of fact. In Dinesh Kumar v. Central Public Works Department, 2023 SCC On-Line Del 6518, wherein the co-ordinate Bench after examining various decisions of the Apex Court held that writ Court can interfere with the factual findings of fact recorded in the industrial award only if the same are perverse or are entirely unsupported by evidence. The jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters is quite limited. In Management of Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Limited v. S. Viswanathan, (2005) 3 SCC 193, the Apex Court, held that the Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals as the case be is the final court of facts, unless the same is perverse or not based on legal evidence, which is when the High Courts can go into the question of fact decided by the Labour Court or the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Devi Dutt, (2006) 13 SCC 32, has held that the writ Court can interfere with the factual findings of fact only if in case the Award is perverse; the Labour Court has applied wrong legal principles; the Labour Court has posed wrong questions; the Labour Court has not taken into consideration all the relevant facts; or the Labour Court has arrived at findings based upon irrelevant facts or on extraneous considerations. In the present case, the Labour Court has arrived at a conclusion based upon the evidence adduced by the parties and the learned Single Judge has affirmed the findings of fact again after minutely scanning the entire evidence, and therefore, the question of interference by this Court does not arise. In the light of the aforesaid, we find absolutely no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the learned Tribunal and the learned Single Judge to hold that the respondents were engaged by the appellant and were illegally terminated. The appeals being meritless are, along with all pending applications, dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.
Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.
