Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a former driver with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), was dismissed from service on 28.09.1991 on grounds of absence without sufficient cause after an internal enquiry. He challenged the dismissal by filing a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The Labour Court, by judgment dated 03.02.2005, while holding the departmental enquiry fair, found the findings of the Enquiry Officer perverse due to mitigating circumstances and directed reinstatement with continuity in service and payment of 50% back wages. Both parties preferred revision applications. The Industrial Court, by common judgment dated 04.09.2007, allowed the respondent’s revision and dismissed the appellant’s, effectively setting aside the back wages. The appellant sought review, and on 15.03.2008, the Industrial Court partly reviewed its order, restoring reinstatement but confirming denial of back wages. The appellant then filed Writ Petition No.1525/2011 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution on 10.02.2011, challenging both the original and review orders. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 09.08.2011 solely on the ground of delay of nearly four years from the original order dated 04.09.2007, without considering the review order. In the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench examined whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the petition on delay and whether the Industrial Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 44 by setting aside back wages. The Court held that the limitation for the writ petition should be computed from the date of the review order (15.03.2008), making the filing on 10.02.2011 within a reasonable period of three years. Relying on the Constitution Bench decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai (AIR 1964 SC 1006), it observed that while the Limitation Act does not strictly apply, the maximum period for a suit is a reasonable guide. The Single Judge’s failure to account for the review order was thus erroneous. On the merits, the Court noted that under certiorari jurisdiction, a finding unsupported by evidence is perverse and constitutes an error of law. It referenced General Manager, Electrical Rengali Hydro Electric Project v. Giridhari Sahu [(2019) 10 SCC 695] and earlier decisions to emphasize that the Industrial Court could not interfere with the Labour Court’s discretionary grant of back wages unless the finding was perverse, which was not shown. The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge’s order, and restored the Labour Court's award of 50% back wages. (The final operative part is not fully captured in the provided excerpt but is implicit from the court's reasoning.)
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Back Wages - Jurisdiction of Industrial Court under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court cannot set aside the Labour Court's discretionary award of back wages unless the finding is perverse or unsupported by evidence. Here, the Industrial Court confirmed reinstatement but set aside 50% back wages, leading to challenge that it exceeded revisional jurisdiction. (Paras 4-5) B) Constitution - Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - When a review order modifies the original order, the starting point for limitation is the date of the review order. The Single Judge erred in computing delay from the original order ignoring the review order dated 15.03.2008; the writ petition filed on 10.02.2011 was within three years from that date. (Paras 8-9) C) Administrative Law - Certiorari - Error Apparent on Face of Record - A finding of fact not supported by any evidence is perverse and constitutes an error of law allowing interference in writ jurisdiction. Observations in Giridhari Sahu followed on what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record for certiorari. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay of four years in challenging the Industrial Court's order dated 04.09.2007, especially when the Industrial Court had subsequently modified its order on 15.03.2008 upon review; and whether the Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act by setting aside the Labour Court's award of 50% back wages.
Final Decision
The High Court, by this oral judgment, allowed the Letters Patent Appeal, set aside the Single Judge’s judgment dated 09.08.2011, and held that the writ petition was filed within a reasonable time. It further held that the Industrial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, by interfering with the Labour Court’s discretionary award of 50% back wages without a finding of perversity. Consequently, the Labour Court’s order granting 50% back wages was restored. (Final operative part not fully captured in excerpt but implied from the court’s reasoning.)
Law Points
- error apparent on face of record justifies certiorari
- finding unsupported by evidence is perverse and an error of law
- delay in filing writ petition computed from date of review order when original order modified
- Industrial Court under Section 44 of MRTU & PULP Act cannot interfere with Labour Court's discretionary back wages unless finding perverse
- reasonable period for writ petition akin to limitation period for suit
