SADHU RAMversusDELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

                                   SA:DHU RAM
                                                                                          A
                                           v.

                  DELHI TRANSPORT COR;PORATION

                                  August 25, 1983

 (0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A. P. SEN AND Ei:                 s. VENKATARAMIAH; 1J.l
       Constitution of India-Art. 226-Exercisi of Jurisdiction by High Court-
 Scope of.

       The services of the appellant-workman were terrr.iin'ated by the Mailage-
 ment of the respondent. On a report , from ·_the Conciliation Officer the
                                                                                          c
 Government referred the dis"pute to the Labour Court. The Management
contended that the workman had not raised 'aiiy denia'nd With ·111e Management
and that there was, therefore, no industrial dispute. The Labour Court found
as a fact that the Union had raised a valid di.:mand with the Management and
that the termination of services of the workman was illegal and· mala fide. The
Management invoked the jurisdiction of the l-iigli Court under· Att. 2'.i6: AJ            D
Single-Judge of the High Coi.Jrt quashed the Award of the Labour' Ccillfl Ori
the finding tliat no derD.and had been raisCd and· there was ·nb irtdusirial" dispute'·
Which could be properly referred bY the Government for adjudication.' The .
judgment· of the Single Judge.was affirnied by the Division Bench.

       Allowing the appeal,                                                               E
       HELD : The High Court was not right in interfering With tlie ·Awanf
of the Labour Court under Art. 226 on· a mei.nechriicillity, [728.E)

        Thejurisdicti'on under Art. 226 of the ConStittitioll is tnily· Wide' but;
 fot-that very reason; it has to·-be exercised With great circumspection. It-is not
for the High Court to constitute itself into an appellate court over Tribunals ·
constituted under special legislations to resolve disputes of a kind qualiiB.tivCIY~
different from ordinary civil disputes and to readjutlicate upOn qiI.eStiOilS'of
fact decided by those Tribunals·. That the questiOns decided pertai:ri'to JtiiiS.:-
dictionalfacts does not entitle the H18h Court to interfere· With'tlie·fiiidihgs·:orl'
jtitisdictiorial facts·which:the'TribUnal is well competent tofdecide: [727·D-F],

      In the instant case there was a conciliation proceeding, the conciliatioll
had failed and the Conciliation -Officer had so reportCd to the GoVer'nrife!nt·
The Go-Vernment was justified in thinkirlg'th'1t" there was an·. indtistrial ciisphterr
and refefring it to the Labour Cotirt. The:Jiigh· Coutt's··diSCUs~iOrl·'Oii wtutF
waS art·indUstrial dispute and-what' was a jurisdictiOnal fact Was· an· ehtirely·
unnecessary exercise. (727 G-F; 728 A-B]

       Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. v. The l'ndustriill Trib1~iihl         0/
Gujarar;·c1968J I s:c.R: 515, exiilaine'd and distinghished:
    726                   SUPREMB COURT. REPORTS          {!983j 3S.R.C.
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil -Appeal No. 6346 of
A   1983.

          Appeal by Special leave from the' Judgment and Order dated         ~
    the 18th January, 1980 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 62 of
    1973.

            D.N. Vohra, Anil Kumar Gupta and Miss Kai/ash Mehta for the
    Appellant.
                                   .      .   l       -           )
            S.N. Bhandari and Arunesewar Gupta for the Respondent.     "
c           The Order of the Court was delivered by

            CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Special leave granted.

          Sadhu Ram was a: probationer Bus Conductor whose services
D   were terminated on 7th September, 1967 by the respondent, the Delhi
    Transport Corporation. On the failure of conciliation proceedings,
    the Conciliation Officer, Delhi submitted his report to the Delhi
    Administration under s. 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, where-
    upon the Delhi Administration referred the following dispute to the
E   Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi for adjudication : "Whether
    the termination of service, of Shri Sadhu Ram, conductor is illegal
    and unjustified, and if so what directions are necessary in this
    respect". The Union on behalf of the wmkman and the management
    appeared before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. On behalf
    of the management, a contention was raised that the workman had
F   not raised anY. demand with the management and that there was
    therefore, no industrial dispute. The reference was - accordingly
    claimed to. be incompetent. The Labou_r Court overruled the
    contention, holding as a fact that the Union had raised a valid
    demand with the management. Ou merits, the Labour Court gave
    the following finding : "I, therefore, hold that the termination order
G   in respect of this workman is illegal and malafide and that amounts
    to colourable exercise of power." Consequently, the management
    was directed to reinstate the workman with effect from 8th
    September, 1967 with the full back wages and benefits. The manage-
    ment invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi under Art.
H
    226 of the Constitution questioning the award of the Labour Court.
    The High Court went into a learned discussion on what was an
    Industrial Dispute and what was a jurisdictional fact, a discussion
             SADHU RAM v. D.T.C. (Chinnappa JI.eddy, J.)

  which in our opinion was an entirely unnecessary·exercise. In launch"
  ing into a discussion on these questions needlessly, the High Court      A
  appeared to forget the basic fact that the Labour Court had given
  two categoric findings : (i) that the Union ha.d raised a demand with
  the management and (ii) that the termination of the services of the
  workman was a malafide and colourable exercise of power. Delving
  into the evidence as if it was an appellate Court, and reappreciating    B
  the evidence, .the High Court thought that one of t!ie document&
  upon which the Labour Court had relied was a suspicious document;·
  and the High Court went on to find that no demand had been raised
· and there was no Industrial Dispute which could be properly refer-
  red by the Government for adjudication. On those findings a learned
  single judge of the High Court quashed the Award of the Presiding        c
  Officer of the Labour Court. The decision . of the learned single
  judge was affirmed by a Division Bench. The workman has come
  before us under Art. 136 of the Constitution.

        We are afraid the High Court misdirected itself. The jurisdic-     D
 tion under Art. 226 of the Constitution is truly wide but for that very
 reason, it has to be exercised with great ·circumspection. It is not
 for the High Court to constitute itself into an appellate court over
 Tribunals constituted under special legislations to resolve disputes of
 a kind qualitath:ely different from ordinary civil disputes and to
  readjudicate upon questions of fact decided by those Tribunals. That     E
 the questions decided pertain to jurisdictional facts does not entitle
 the High Court to interfere "ith the findings on jurisdictional facts
 which the Tribunal is well competent to decide. Where the circum'
 st;mces indicate that .the Tribunal has snatched at jurisdiction, the
 High Court may be justified in interfering. But where the Tribunal
 gets jurisdiction only if ·a reference is made and it is therefore
                                                                           F
  impossible ever to say that the Tribunal has clutched at jurisdiction,
 we do not think that it was proper for the High Court to substitute its
 judgment for that of the Labour Court and hold that the workman
 had raised no demand with the management. There was a concilia-
  tion proceeding, the conciliation had failed aJ!d the Conciliation       G
  Ofli~er had so reported to the Government. The Government was
 justified in thinking thatthere was an industrial dispute and referring
 it to the Labour Court.

      The High Court appeared to think that the. decision of this
                                                                           H
 Court in the Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. v. The Industrial
                             SOPRliMB COURT RBPORTS           . [! 98~1 3 s.c.k.
       Tribunal of Gujarat(')' justified its conclusion that the failure of the
       conci!iction proceedings and the·report of the Conciliation Officer
      to the Government were not sufficient to sustain a finding that th ere
       was an industrial dispute. This was also what was urged by· the
      learned counsel for the respondents. The High Court was in error
      in so thinking. In Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. v. The
       Industrial Tribunal of Gujarat('), the question really was about tire
8'     precise scope of the reference made by the Government for adjudica-
       tion; Throughout it appeared that the· only reference that the
     . Government could have made related to·the payment of retrencl\ment
       compensation whiclr alone was the subject matter of dispute .between
       the.parties. The conciliation which failed had also concerned'' itself
       witfr the questioff oCpayment of retrenchment compensation' and' in
       their claims before the management, the workmen had requested'. for
       payment of retrenchment·compensation' and raised no dispute regard·
       ing reinstatement. It was in those circumstances that /the court held
       that there was no industrial dispute regarding reinstatement. We do
       not.see how Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. v. The lhdustrial
       Tribunal of Gujarat can be of any assistance to the respondents.

         _ Nor do we think that it was right for the High Court to
      interfere with the award of a Labour Court under Art. 226' on a
      mere technicality. Article 226 is a deviCc to secure and' ad\'ance
      justice and not otherwise. In the result, we allbw the appeal,~ set
      aside the judgment of the High·Court and rest-Ore the award of' the
      Presidfog. Officer, Labour Court.

      H.S.K.                                                  Appeal allowed.




           (I) [1968] 1 S.C.R. 515.