Article 227 of the Indian Constitution deals with the power of superintendence over all courts by the High Courts. Article 227(1) provides the every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

In a recent judgment dated 06-01-2015, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated that High Court acting under Article 226 of the Constitution can-not reverse the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

In the instant case, the appeal was filed against the order dated 23.5.2013 of the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench whereby a Single Judge classifying the respondent as ‘workman’ allowed the writ petition preferred by him, quashed the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal II, State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and directed the Tribunal to decide respondent’s Case on merit.

The Case:
Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2015 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.32616 of 2013] M/s. Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) vs. Krishna Kant Pandey (Respondent)

Facts of the Case:
The respondent in the present case, was appointed on the post of Operator/Technician for six months on probation basis and was later confirmed and awarded annual increment(s) subsequently. Lastly, he was promoted to the post of Fleet Executive.

As per the respondent, he was posted as a Fleet Executive and was required to discharge the mechanical work and he was called as skilled workman and no other staff was posted in his subordination. The respondent also alleged the unfair conduct of the employer in transferring him from one place to another, compelling to resign or go on long leave, not allowed to join and terminating his services by giving one month’s salary in lieu of notice prior to termination.

The respondent preferred a reference before the Conciliation Officer, Lucknow alleging that he is a ‘workman’ within the meaning of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and termination of his services by the Company is contrary to Section 6 of the Act. Whereas, the company maintained that the respondent did not satisfy the criteria of a workman as defined under Section 2(z) of the Act. The Industrial Tribunal dismissed the reference stating that the respondent work is supervisory in nature and he is not a workman under Section 2(z) of the Act.

Respondent then moved the Allahabad High Court by a writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal and also for his re-instatement to the post of Fleet Executive with continuity of service and for payment of full back wages. The appellant company pleaded that the order of termination is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed writ petition of the respondent, quashed order of the Tribunal and directed it to proceed with the adjudication of the respondent’s case on merit. Aggrived by the order of the High Court, the appellant company filed special leave Petition with the Supreme Court.

The appellant challenged the order of the High Court on several counts relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs. Ashalata S. Guram, (1986) 4 SCC 447, Birla Corpn. Ltd.. vs. Rajeshwar Mahato and Others, (2001) 10 SCC 611 and S.K. Mani vs. M/s. Carona Sahu Company Limited and Ors., (1994) 3 SCC 510:

1. that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction conferred upon it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by by reversing the finding recorded by the Tribunal and issuing suo motu directions to the executive to amend the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act
2. that the High Court failed to appreciate that the nature of duties and responsibilities entrusted upon the respondent are not manual, skilled or unskilled or technical services as defined in Section 2(z) of the said Act which defines ‘workman’.
3. that in the capacity of Fleet Executive, respondent was required to monitor each and every vehicle of the Fleet and ensure that the necessary repair proceedings were carried out and thus thenature of duties and responsibilities were  manual, managerial and supervisory.
4. that the High Court has misdirected itself in considering the relevant facts and pleadings which were not even placed before the Industrial Tribunal.
5. that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not re-appreciate or re-weigh evidence and disturb the finding of facts recorded by the Tribunal based on appreciation of evidence.

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order passed by the Tribunal. The apex Court held that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in interfering with the finding of facts recorded by the Labour Court.

The Supreme Court also referred to its earlier judgment on similar questions in Birla Corpn. Ltd.. vs. Rajeshwar Mahato and Others, (2001) 10 SCC and Indian Overseas Bank vs. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers’ Union and Another, (2000) 4 SCC 245.

The few excerpts of the judgment are as under:

“In case of finding of facts, the court should not interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Reference may be made to the observations of this Court in Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta where this Court observed that the High Court could not in the guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal. The High Court was not competent to correct errors of facts by examining the evidence and reappreciating.”

“Curiously enough, though the respondent did not come under the definition of workman under Section 2(z) of the Act, the High Court proceeded on the basis that the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was enacted in 1947 and although the respondent cannot be held to be a workman under the said definition, held that he shall have to be classified as a workman and directed the Government to make amendment in Section 2(z) of the Act excluding some of the clauses.”

“In exercise of its writ jurisdiction, the High Court proceeded initially on the basis that the appellant had entered into service on the post of Operator/Technician Grade-III, which is a technical post and from there he was promoted to different posts including Fleet Executive. The High Court committed grave error in holding that although he is not covered under the definition of workman as defined under Section 2(z) of the Act he shall be classified as a workman. The High Court further exceeded its jurisdiction in advising the Government to make an amendment in Section 2(z) of the Act and to exclude some clauses. The order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained in law.”

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>