Case Note & Summary
The Union of India filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging a Part-I award dated 11 October 2006 made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai (CGIT). The impugned award held that the All India Institute of Physical Medicines & Rehabilitation is an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners, represented by Mr. Rui Rodrigues, contended that the Tribunal had contradicted its own earlier order dated 18 February 1999 in Reference No. CGIT-2/581/1998 concerning the Aliyavar Jung National Institute for Hearing Handicapped, Mumbai, which was allegedly a similar institute. In that earlier order, the Tribunal had ruled that the Aliyavar Jung National Institute was not an industry under Section 2(j). The petitioners argued that this contradiction constituted an error apparent on the face of the record and non-application of mind, and sought quashing of the impugned award and striking down of the reference made by the Union of India on 27 January 2000. The respondent, Mohan P. Gore, did not appear. The court, presided over by Justice M. S. Sonak, found no merit in the submission. The court noted that there was no material placed on record to establish that the Aliyavar Jung National Institute was similar to the institute in question. Further, the court held that rulings of tribunals, particularly on factual issues, hardly constitute a precedent. Additionally, the court observed that the reasoning in the earlier order dated 18 February 1999 was flawed, and the Tribunal in the impugned award was right in not relying on it. The court remarked that consistency may be desirable, but consistency of errors is not a virtue. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Definition of Industry - Section 2(j) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Challenge to Tribunal's award holding institute as industry - Petitioner argued contradiction with earlier order regarding similar institute - Court held no material to establish similarity, tribunal rulings not precedents, and consistency of errors not a virtue - Petition dismissed (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal holding that All India Institute of Physical Medicines & Rehabilitation is an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record or non-application of mind due to alleged contradiction with an earlier order of the same Tribunal regarding a different institute.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The court found no merit in the submission as there was no material to establish similarity between the two institutes, tribunal rulings on factual issues are not precedents, and the earlier order was flawed. Consistency of errors is not a virtue.
Law Points
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Section 2(j)
- definition of industry
- tribunal rulings not precedents
- consistency of errors not a virtue
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (08) 103
Writ Petition No. 1309 of 2007
Mr. Rui Rodrigues a/w. N.R. Prajapati i/b Anamika Malhotra for Petitioners. None appears for the Respondent.
Union of India through The Director & ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a Part-I award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (Union of India) sought quashing of the impugned award dated 11 October 2006 and striking down of the reference made by the Union of India on 27 January 2000.
Filing Reason
The petitioners contended that the impugned award contradicted an earlier order of the same Tribunal dated 18 February 1999 in respect of a similar institute, which constituted an error apparent on the face of the record and non-application of mind.
Previous Decisions
The Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, by its Part-I award dated 11 October 2006, held that All India Institute of Physical Medicines & Rehabilitation is an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal had earlier, by order dated 18 February 1999 in Reference No. CGIT-2/581/1998, held that Aliyavar Jung National Institute for Hearing Handicapped, Mumbai, is not an industry under Section 2(j).
Issues
Whether the impugned award is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record or non-application of mind due to alleged contradiction with an earlier order of the same Tribunal regarding a different institute.
Submissions/Arguments
Mr. Rui Rodrigues, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Tribunal contradicted its own order in Reference No. CGIT-2/581/1998 in respect of Aliyavar Jung National Institute for Hearing Handicapped, Mumbai, which is a similar institute. In the order made on 18 February 1999, the Tribunal ruled that the Aliyavar Jung National Institute is not an industry within Section 2(j). Such contradiction constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record and non-application of mind. On this ground, the impugned award ought to be quashed and set aside and the reference struck down.
Ratio Decidendi
Rulings of tribunals, particularly on factual issues, hardly constitute a precedent. Consistency may be desirable, but consistency of errors is not a virtue. An alleged contradiction with an earlier order of the same tribunal regarding a different institute, without material to establish similarity, does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record or non-application of mind.
Judgment Excerpts
There is obviously, no merit in the submission.
Consistency may be desirable, however, consistency of errors, is certainly not a virtue.
Procedural History
The Union of India made a reference on 27 January 2000. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, passed a Part-I award on 11 October 2006 holding that All India Institute of Physical Medicines & Rehabilitation is an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Union of India challenged this award by filing Writ Petition No. 1309 of 2007 before the Bombay High Court. The High Court reserved judgment on 8 August 2014 and pronounced it on 13 August 2014, dismissing the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(j)
