# U.P. State Electricity Board v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Rampur and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 301
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-03-31
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ petition No.16978 of 1996
- **Bench:** Dr. B.S. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-state-electricity-board-v-presiding-officer-labour-court-u-p-rampur-and-40087
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art 226 and 227Scope of supersory power-High Court
can not re-appreciate the evidence by
regarding its own finding.
Case law discussed:
1995(6) SCC-576, 1997(7) SCC-300
1998(5) SCC-749, 1999(1) SCC-47
1998(3) SCC-341, 1999(2) SCC-171
1999(2) SCC-143, 1999(4) SCC-1
1999(4) SCC-521, 1999(6) SCC-82
AIR 2000 SC-931, 2001(4) SCC-472
2000(4) SCC-245, 2001(1) SCC-4
AIR 1973 SC-1227, AIR 1982 SC-1552
1984(1) SCC-152, AIR 1984 SC-914
1987(4) SCC-691, 1990(3) SCC-565
AIR 1965 SC-917, 2000(87) FLR-483
AIR 1990 SC-2174, 1997(1) SCC-9
AIR 1997 SC-2661, 1998 (2) SCC-159
1999(7) SCC-645
Practice
&
Procedures
-
Petitioner
workman-about
15
charges
stand
proved-punishment of removal awarded
-Labour Court found all the charges
grave
in
nature-even
interfered
by
granting reinstatement without back
wages-held-the order of punishment
relates back from the date of dismissedcannot be interfered by the labour court;
number of reasons discussed.

Held- Para 17

In the instant case as the result of the
enquiry held by the Labour Court relate
back to the date of removal by the
employer,
the
workman
cannot
be
awarded any relief.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] U.P. State Electricity Board V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others
301
mandatory and is to be strictly complied
with or not.

18. In view of the foregoing
discussions, we do not find any merit in
this appeal and it is dismissed. However,
the parties shall bear their own costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.03.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ petition No.16978 of 1996

U.P. State Electricity Board ...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P.,
Rampur and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ranjit Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P.C. Jhingan
Ms. Sarita Jhingan
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art 226 and 227Scope of supersory power-High Court
can not re-appreciate the evidence by
regarding its own finding.
Case law discussed:
1995(6) SCC-576, 1997(7) SCC-300
1998(5) SCC-749, 1999(1) SCC-47
1998(3) SCC-341, 1999(2) SCC-171
1999(2) SCC-143, 1999(4) SCC-1
1999(4) SCC-521, 1999(6) SCC-82
AIR 2000 SC-931, 2001(4) SCC-472
2000(4) SCC-245, 2001(1) SCC-4
AIR 1973 SC-1227, AIR 1982 SC-1552
1984(1) SCC-152, AIR 1984 SC-914
1987(4) SCC-691, 1990(3) SCC-565
AIR 1965 SC-917, 2000(87) FLR-483
AIR 1990 SC-2174, 1997(1) SCC-9
AIR 1997 SC-2661, 1998 (2) SCC-159
1999(7) SCC-645
Practice
&
Procedures
-
Petitioner
workman-about
15
charges
stand
proved-punishment of removal awarded
-Labour Court found all the charges
grave
in
nature-even
interfered
by
granting reinstatement without back
wages-held-the order of punishment
relates back from the date of dismissedcannot be interfered by the labour court;
number of reasons discussed.

Held- Para 17

In the instant case as the result of the
enquiry held by the Labour Court relate
back to the date of removal by the
employer,
the
workman
cannot
be
awarded any relief.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
for setting aside the Award passed by the
Labour Court dated 13th November, 1995,
by which the learned labour Court has
quashed the order of removal from service
of respondent workman in spite of
proving all the 15 charges against him, on
the ground that his family members would
suffer and directed for reinstatement of
the workman with all consequential
benefits except the back wages.

2. Facts and circumstances giving
rise to this case are that the respondent
workman raised the industrial dispute and
the appropriate Government vide order
dated 05.06.1992 made a reference as to
whether termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 08.03.1977 was in
accordance with law, and if not, to what
relief he was entitled to? In pursuance of
the said reference the workman filed the
claim petition submitting that he had been
employed as a clerk on daily wage w.e.f.
3rd December, 1973 and he was issued a
charge sheet dated 18/20th September,
1976 containing 15 charges. Enquiry was
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
302
conducted which was not in accordance
with law. He had not been given any
opportunity to defend himself nor the
copy of the statement of the witnesses had
ever been supplied to him and vide order
dated
08.07.1977
his
services
had
illegally been terminated. Allegations of
malafide were also alleged as the
workman had been office bearer of the
union.

3. The management contested the
case submitting that charges against the
workman had been very serious. Enquiry
had been conducted in accordance with
law and his removal from service was
justified and there was no occasion for the
Labour Court to interfere. However, in
view of the pleadings parties were heard
and the Labour Court came to the
conclusion that the disciplinary enquiry
conducted against the workman was not
in accordance with law, and therefore, the
order of the termination stood vitiated. In
view of the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the
Act 1947) parties were permitted to lead
the evidence, and after appreciating the
same the Labour Court was satisfied that
the management proved all the 15 charges
against the workman successfully. It came
to the conclusion that some of the charges
were
of
really
grave
nature
and
delinquency of the workman was very
grave, but considering the fact that he had
served for some time and he was
unemployed
after
termination
from
service, the Labour Court set aside the
order of termination and directed for
reinstatement of the workman with all
consequential benefits except the back
wages. Hence this petition.

4. Shri Ranjit Saxena, learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that whatever may be the fate of the
domestic enquiry held by the management
against the workman, once the Labour
Court after holding enquiry itself came to
the conclusion that all the charges stood
proved, there was no occasion for the
Labour Court to interfere with the
punishment.

5. On the contrary, Ms. Sarita
Jhingan, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the workman has submitted that
once the Labour Court was satisfied that
the punishment imposed was too harsh
and workman should be deprived only of
the back wages, in a limited jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution no interference is required
and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

I
have
considered
the
rival
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.

6. This Court has very limited scope
under Article 227 of the Constitution as
per the law laid down in Mohd. Yunus
Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim & ors., AIR 1984
SC 38, wherein it has been held that even
the errors of law cannot be corrected in
exercise of power of judicial review under
Article 227 of the Constitution and the
power can be used sparingly when it
comes
to
the
conclusion
that
the
Authority/Tribunal
has
exceeded
its
jurisdiction or proceeded under erroneous
presumption of jurisdiction. The High
Court
cannot
assume
unlimited
prerogative to correct all species of
hardship
or
wrong
decision.
For
interference, there must be a case of
flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or where order of the Tribunal etc.
has resulted in grave in justice. (Vide
Constitution Bench judgments of the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] U.P. State Electricity Board V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others
303
Apex Court in D.N. Banerji Vs. P.R.
Mukherjee,) AIR 1953 SC 58; and
Nagendra Nath Bora Vs. Commissioner
of Hills Division & Appeals, AIR 1958
SC 398). For interference under Article
227, the finding of facts recorded by the
Authority should be found to be perverse
or patently erroneous and dehorns the
factual and legal position on record. (Vide
Nibaran Chandra Bag Vs. Mahendra
Nath Ghughu, AIR 1963 SC 1895;
Rukmanand Bairoliya Vs. The State of
Bihar & ors., AIR 1971 SC 746; Gujarat
Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel tubes
Mazdoor Sabha & ors., AIR 1980 SC
1896; Laxmikant R. Bhojwani Vs.
Pratapsing Mohansingh Singh Pardeshi,
(1995) 6 SCC 576; Reliance Industries
Ltd. Vs. Pravinbhai Jasbhai Patel & ors.,
(1997) 7 SCC 300; M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd.
& Anr. Vs. Sub-Judicial Magistrate &
ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749; and Virendra
Kashinath Ravat & ors. Vs. Vinayak N.
Joshi & ors. (1999) 1 SCC 47).

7. It is well settled that power under
Article
227
is
of
the
judicial
superintendence which cannot be used to
up-set conclusions of facts, howsoever
erroneous those may be, unless such
conclusions are so perverse or so
unreasonable that no Court could ever
have reached them. (Vide Rena Drego
Vs. Lalchand Soni & ors., (1998) 3 SCC
341; Chandra Bhushan Vs. Beni Prasad
& ors., (1999) 1 SCC 70; Savitrabai
Bhausaheb Kevate & ors. Vs. Raichand
Dhanraj Lunja, (1999) 2 SCC 171; and
Savita Chemical (P) Ltd. Vs. dyes &
chemical Workers' Union & Anr.,(1999)
2 SCC 143). Unless the findings are
patently erroneous and dehorns the factual
and legal position on record, exercising
the power under Article 227 of the
constitution may not be justified and in
that eventuality disturbing the findings of
facts would amount to jurisdictional error.
(Vide Dattatraya Laxman Kamble Vs.
Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde &
Anr.,(1999) 4 SCC 1). Power under
Article 227 of the Constitution is not in
the nature of power of appellate authority
enabling re appreciation of evidence. It
should not alter the conclusion reached by
the Competent Statutory Authority merely
on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence. (Vide Union of India & ors. Vs.
Himmat Singh Chahar, (1999) 4 SCC
521). Similarly, in Ajaib Singh Vs.
Sirhind Co-operative Marketing cum
Processing Service Society Ltd., (1999) 6
SCC 82, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that there is no justification for the High
Court to substitute its view for the opinion
of the Authorities/ Courts below as the
same is not permissible in proceedings
under
Articles
226/227
of
the
Constitution.

8. In Mohan Amba Prasad
Agnihotri Vs. Bhaskar Balwant Aheer,
AIR 2000 SC 931; the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that jurisdiction of the High
Court
under
Article
227
of
the
Constitution
is
not
appealable
but
supervisory and, therefore, it cannot
interfere with the findings of fact recorded
by the Courts below unless there is no
evident to support the findings or the
findings are totally perverse. Similarly, in
Union of India Vs. Rajendra Prabhu,
(2001) 4 SCC 472, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that the High Court, in
exercise of its extraordinary powers under
Article 227 of the Constitution, cannot reappreciate the evidence nor it can
substitute its subjective opinion in place
of the findings of Authorities below.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
304
9. In Indian Overseas Bank Vs.
Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen
Workers' Union (2000) 4 SCC 245, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is
impermissible for the Writ Court to re
appreciate the evidence liberally and
drawing conclusions on his own on pure
questions of fact for the reason that it is
not exercising the appellate jurisdiction
over the awards passed by the Tribunal.
The findings of fact recorded by the fact
finding authority duly constituted for the
purpose and which ordinarily should be
considered to have become final, cannot
be disturbed for the mere reason of having
been based on materials or evidence not
sufficient or credible in the opinion of the
Writ Court to warrant those findings, at
any rate, as long as they are based upon
some material which are relevant for the
purpose or even on the ground that there
is yet another view which can reasonably
and possibly be taken.

10. Similar view has been reiterated
by the Supreme Court in State of
Maharashtra Vs. Milind & ors., (2001) 1
SCC 4; Extrella Rubber Vs. Dass Estate
(P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97; and Omeph
Mathai & ors. Vs. M. Abdul Khader,
(2002) 1 SCC 319.

11. In view of the provisions of
Section 6(2-A) of the Act 1947 Labour
Court is competent to set aside the
discharge or dismissal and reinstate the
workman and competent also to substitute
any of lesser punishment for discharge or
dismissal, as the circumstances of the
case
may
require.
The
issue
of
jurisdiction
of
the
Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court to interfere with
the quantum of punishment has been
considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
time and again and it has categorically
been held that generally Tribunal should
not interfere with the same but in
exceptional
circumstances
where the
punishment is so harsh as to suggest
victimization and found not to be
commensurate with the degree of guilt,
interference is permissible. For such an
interference, the Industrial Tribunal must
record reasons as the award is subject to
judicial review in writ jurisdiction. (Vide
The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre &
Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. Vs. The
Management & ors., AIR 1973 SC 1227;
Rama Kant Misra vs. State of U.P. &
ors.,
AIR
1982
SC
SC
1552;
Management of Hindustan Machine
Tools Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Usman & Anr.,
(1984) 1 Scc 152; Ved Prakash Gupta
M/s. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd., AIR
1984 SC 914; Christian Medical College,
Hospital employees' Union & Anr. Vs.
Christian
Medical
College,
Veelore
Association & ors., (1987) 4 SCC 691;
and Workmen Vs. Bharat Fritz Werner
(P) Ltd. & Anr., (1990) 3 SCC 565).

12. In Llyods Bank Ltd. Vs. Panna
Lal Gupta, AIR 1967 SC 428 the
Supreme Court held that Tribunal should
interfere with the punishment only if the
conduct of the employer shows lack of
bonafides or victimization of employee or
unfair
labour
practice.
In
Hind
Construction & engineering Company
Ltd. Vs. Their workmen AIR 1965 SC
917 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as
under:-

"The Tribunal may in a strong case
interfere with a basic error on a point of
fact or a perverse finding but it cannot
substitute its own appraisal of the
evidence for that of the officer conducting
the domestic enquiry though it may
interfere where the principles of natural
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] U.P. State Electricity Board V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others
305
justice or fair play have not been followed
or where the enquiry is so perverted in its
procedure as to amount to no enquiry at
all... The tribunal is not required to
consider the propriety or adequacy of the
punishment of whether it is excessive or
too severe. But where the punishment is
shockingly disproportionate regard being
had to the particular conduct and the past
record or is such as no reasonable
employer would ever impose in like
circumstances, the tribunal may treat the
imposition of such punishment as itself
showing victimization or unfair labour
practice......"

13. In Janatha Baza etc. Vs. The
Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha
etc., 2000 (87) FLR 483 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that where the
Labour Court comes to the specific
finding of fact that charges of breach of
trust and misappropriation of goods had
been clearly proved, the Labour Court
cannot set aside the order of removal or
workman
and
pass
the
order
of
reinstatement.

14. The case of the petitioner
requires to be examined in view of the
aforesaid
settled
legal
propositions.
Admittedly, 15 charges had been framed
against him and found proved by the
Labour Court itself after holding the
enquiry. The said charges included not
posting the meter reading in the ledgers
though the meter readings were handed
over to him by the meter reader and he
did not issue the bills. Thus charge of
failure to discharge his duties; realizing
the
cash
from
the
consumer
on
01.05.1976 and failed to paste the receipt
in the revenue cash book on the same
date, and refusal to receive the letters of
warning of his misconduct; failed to
realize the cash from consumers who had
come to make payments on 03.05.1976;
coming late to the office by 1,1/2 hours
on
10.05.1976
without
any
prior
permission or intimation and handing
over the keys of the cash chest to another
R.G.C.; refusing to receive the letters
dated 11.05.1976 and thus defiance of the
orders of the superiors; not issuing the
receipts to the consumer Shri M.L. Goel
on 14.06.1976 and thus guilty of violation
of discharge of his duties; not depositing
the cash in the two Banks realized by him
from consumers on 07.06.1976 and
08.06.1976;
absence
from
duty
on
06.07.1976 without leave; refusing to
receive the letters mentioned therein from
time to time; entering into the office of
Shri Prem Kumar, S.D.O. on 08.07.1976
and pressurizing him to sanction the leave
for 06.07.1976 with full pay and as it was
not agreed upon getting agitated and
making an attempt to cause physical harm
to him; addressing the letter to the high
authorities, i.e., Chief Minister directly
without sending them through proper
channel; taking unauthorized possession
of residential unit breaking open the lock;
and further making misrepresentations in
the application twisting the facts that the
said residence was lying vacant without
any lock.

15. If all the 15 charges stood
proved before the Labour Court itself, the
only question remains as to whether
Labour Court would be justified in
interfering
with
the
punishment
of
removal? The charges of absence from
duty without leave, coming to the office
late, not depositing the money in time
received from the consumers, not making
meter readings in the ledgers and not
sending the bills in time stood proved. But
more serious charges remain nos. 12, 14
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
306
and 15. Charge No. 12 had been that
respondent
workman
pressurized
his
officer concerned to grant him leave with
full pay and as he did not agree he not
only abused him but tried to assault him
physically. Had other person on the scene
not intervened workman could have given
a good thrashing to the said officer.
Charges No. 14 and 15 relate to
occupying a house unauthorisedly by the
workman by breaking open the lock and
further twisting the fact and making a
misrepresentation that the house was
lying vacant unlocked and therefore, he
occupied it. Thus, charges are of a grave
nature. The cumulative effect of all the
charges warrant showing no sympathy
whatsoever to such a workman. The
Labour Court has gravely erred in
showing misplaced sympathy which the
respondent workman did not deserve.
Respondent-workman was employed on
3rd February, 1973 and removed on 8th
March, 1977, thus worked only for a
period of three years three months.
Reference to the Labour Court was made
on 5th June, 1992, i.e., after 15 years and 3
months. Where was the occasion for the
Labour Court to grant such a relief at such
a belated stage. The Labour Court failed
to appreciate that the dispute itself might
not have been in existence after 15 years
of termination of his services. The
consideration taken by the Labour Court
that his family members would suffer is
an extraneous consideration which ought
not to have taken into account at all. In
such a fact situation where the charges
have been of a very grave nature,
punishment of removal from service
could not be held to be disproportionate to
the delinquently and thus there was no
occasion of the Labour Court to substitute
the punishment lesser than awarded by the
employer. It is shocking that the Labour
Court had not awarded any punishment
whatsoever except depriving the workman
from back wages which he could have
been deprived of otherwise also for
getting the reference from the appropriate
authority at such a belated stage.

16. There is no dispute to the settled
legal proposition that the result of the
enquiry held by the Labour Court relates
back to the date of termination. In Desraj
Gupta Vs. Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1990
SC 2174, and the Apex Court held that in
a case where Industrial Tribunal comes to
conclusion that the domestic inquiry was
unfair and holds the inquiry itself and
even then it comes to conclusion that the
termination was valid or termination order
was passed on substantial evidence; the
termination would be effective from the
date the labour court passed the order.
However, in R. Thiruvirokolam Vs.
Presiding Officer & Anr., (1997) 1 SCC
9 the Supreme Court took a contrary view
and held that in such an eventuality, the
order of the labour court will relate back
to the date of order of termination was
passed by the employer and in such a
case, the workman cannot be held entitled
for any relief for the interregnum period
from the date of termination order passed
by the employer and final award made by
the Tribunal.

17.

All
these
cases
were
reconsidered by Supreme Court in Punjab
Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. &
Anr. Vs. Kale Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2661,
and the Apex Court held that the
judgment in Desraj Gupta's case (supra)
was not a correct law. The Supreme Court
had subsequently, in Director, State
Transport, Punjab Vs. Gurinder Singh &
ors., (1998) 2 SCC 159, has reiterated the
law laid down by Supreme Court in R.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] R.S. Pandey V. D.G.(Administration), Medical Health, Family Welfare and others
307
Thiruvirkolam's case (supra). More so, in
Graphite
India
Ltd.
&
Anr.
Vs.
Durgapur Project Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC
645, the similar principle has been
reiterated and it has been held that when
an action is approved, it would relate back
to the date of action.

18. In the instant case as the result of
the enquiry held by the Labour Court
relate back to the date of removal by the
employer,
the
workman
cannot
be
awarded any relief.

19. In view of the above, petition
succeeds and is allowed. Labour Court
Award dated 13.11.1995 is hereby set
aside and the punishment of removal
imposed by the employer is held to be
commensurate to the delinquently.

20. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.03.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ petition No.11678 of 2003.

Rama Shanker Pandey
...Petitioner
Versus
Director
General
(Administration)
Medical Health, Family Welfare Swasthya
Bhawan, Lucknow
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jagdish Lal
Sri R.M. Singh
Sri. S.K. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.
Constitution of India, Art 226-Mandamus
-seeking
direction
to
decide
the
representation-No statutory provisions
about representation shown-held court
declined to issue any direction.

Held- Para 17

Court, therefore, declines to exercise its
extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India as
prayed for by the petitioner on the
ground that a claim which would have
become
bared
by
time
cannot
be
permitted to be revived under the guise
of seeking a direction for deciding the
representation.
Admittedly,
the
petitioner has made a prayer for a
direction to the respondents to decide
his representation dated 12th August,
1999 which claims the payment which
was due in the year 1984.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. This writ petition was heard and
dismissed by me on 13th March, 2003 for
the reasons to be recorded later on. Now
here are the reasons for dismissing the
aforesaid writ petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel for the Respondents. In view of
the order proposed to be passed, it is not
necessary to invite counter-affidavit.

3. The petitioner, by means of this
writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, has prayed for the
following reliefs:

(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding
and directing respondent no. 3 to
decide the representation of the
petitioner dated 12.8.1999 (Annexure
'12' to the writ petition) forthwith.