GENERAL MANAGER, ELECTRICAL RENGALI HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT VS SHRI GIRIDHARI SAHU

By – Aditya Katayan

In the Supreme Court of India

Name of the CaseGENERAL MANAGER, ELECTRICAL RENGALI HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT VS SHRI GIRIDHARI SAHU
Date of the Case12 SEPTEMBER 2019
PetitionerGENERAL MANAGER, ELECTRICAL RENGALI HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ORISSA AND ORS.
Respondent(s)SHRI GIRIDHARI SAHU AND ORS.
Bench/JudgesSANJAY KISHAN KAUL K.M. JOSEPH
Statutes/Constitution InvolvedTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA INDIAN CONTRACT ACT
Important Sections/ ArticlesARTICLE 226 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION SECTION 33A INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT SECTION 33 INDIAN CONTRACT ACT SECTION 33 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT

ABSTRACT

Rengali Multipurpose Project of Odisha State has been developed for using water of Brahmani for power age advantage and giving flood control in the low-lying spaces of the stream valley. The fundamental Dam across stream Brahmani with the Power Station has arranged close to town Rengali of Talcher Sub-Division of Angul District a ways off of 65 K.Ms. upstream of Talcher Town.

The instance of the candidates (who were NMR laborers in the Rengali Unit) under the watchful eye of the Labour Court was that a reference had been made to the Labour Court dated 02.07.1999 for mediating questions between the appellants-Management and its workers.

INTRODUCTION

This appeal by extraordinary leave is coordinated against the judgment of the High Court of Orissa excusing the Writ Application recorded under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the litigant. What was brought being referred to under the watchful eye of the High Court was the Award passed by the Signature Not Verified Digitally endorsed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

By the denounced request, the High Court had excused the Writ Application and affirmed the Award. The honor was passed on an application recorded under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter alluded to as ‘the Act’, for short) by 90 specialists of the litigant, the respondents in this who will be alluded as the candidates.

BACKGROUND OF CASE

On 28.10.1992, the High Court, in Writ Petition O.J.C. No. 2420 of 1989, held that the NMR laborers in the Rengali Hydro Electric Project (RHEP) who had turned out ceaselessly for a time of five years on the date of the judgment, were entitled to regularization. They were found qualified for the same compensation as standard workers.

The further instance of the candidates, who were NMR laborers in the Application under Section 33A of the Act, was that they had marked certain papers on the premise that it was important for their being regularized however as it ended up, it was utilized as though they were Applications for asserting the advantage of a Voluntary Separation Scheme (hereinafter alluded to as ‘VSS’ for short). They were kept from releasing their obligations. They came to think about the duplicity rehearsed. This prompted the application under Section 33A of the Act.

The Labour Court tracked down that the VSS was pushed onto the candidates and there was no exposure and permitted the application and coordinated restoration with 70% back-compensation which was coordinated to be changed towards installments made to the candidates.

FACTS OF CASE

The High Court saw that a mechanical debate was forthcoming, as seen by us before. It observed the way that the Labour Court has continued to track down that the VSS had not been distributed broadly for the data of the NMR laborers, and accordingly, it would not be acknowledged that the NMR laborers marked the applications knowing its substance and outcomes. It was discovered entomb Alia further that the Award was passed on liking the oral and narrative proof delivered under the watchful eye of the Labour Court. Seeing what was conjured under the steady gaze of the High Court was Certiorari locale and that a writ can be given distinctly in the exercise of the administrative purview and finding that there was no jurisdictional mistake or any blunder clear apparently, the writ appeal was in like manner excused.

ISSUES RAISED

  • Whether NMR workers were entitled to payment of Hydro Allowance at revised rates.
  • Whether NMR workers of the Rengali Unit of the Orissa Hydro Power Corporation, who were being paid medical allowance, were entitled for such allowance at revised rates.

ARGUMENTS BY PETITIONER

Learned counsel for the appellants would present that it is a reasonable situation where the Labour Court has neglected to see the value in that the candidates before it, 90 in number, had made applications with full information on the VSS. Representatives, who were working in the NMR foundation, who had placed in five years of constant assistance or more in the Corporation and had three years left prior to achieving a specific age as on 01.01.1999, were entitled under the Scheme.

The council would bring up that there was, at any rate, just a single application in the idea of the application which we have recently alluded to, in particular, in other words, just a single laborer has welcomed on record an application expressing about danger and intimidation of the appellants-Management and that the workers never planned to take the VSS. Most likely, the instance of appellants is that the letter of the first candidate dated 01.06.2000, was not gotten. The proof has been given by just four specialists. The applications have been given by 90 candidates. Along these lines, it was not open to the candidates to lay store by the application alluded to above.

ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENTS

Per contra learned senior counsel, would bring up that this Court might see the value in that what is included are discoveries of truth delivered by the Labour Court. The High Court, under its administrative ward, has decided not to meddle with such discoveries of reality and they ought not to be upset by this Court in the exercise of force under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Then, he would bring up that the candidates, who were just NMR laborers, couldn’t be ascribed with the information on the substance of the Scheme. Every one of the issues has been valued by the Labour Court.

The candidates offered legitimately conflicting expressions at various occasions of procedures saying that the marks were taken ‘persuasively’ and ‘deceitfully’. Comparable proclamations were made by the other three observers. There was no unjustifiable impact or/and distortion on the candidates as they asserted in the protest under area 33-A

RELATED PROVISIONS

Section 33 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings. –

During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before 2 an arbitrator or] a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall–

(a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or

(b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workmen concerned in such dispute, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending.

Section 33A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Special provision for adjudication as to whether conditions of service, etc., changed during the pendency of proceedings. –

Where an employer contravenes the provisions of section 33 during the pendency of proceedings 6 before a conciliation officer, Board, an arbitrator, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal], any employee aggrieved by such contravention may make a complaint in writing,

(a) to such conciliation officer or Board, and the conciliation officer or Board shall take such complaint into account in inediating in, and promoting the settlement of, such industrial dispute; and

(b) to such arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal and on receipt of such complaint, the arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it, in accordance with the provisions of this Act and shall submit his or its award to the appropriate Government and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly.]

Section 33 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872

Enforcement of contracts contingent on an event not happening. —Contingent contracts to do or not to do anything if an uncertain future event does not happen, can be enforced when the happening of that event becomes impossible, and not before. —Contingent contracts to do or not to do anything if an uncertain future event does not happen, can be enforced when the happening of that event becomes impossible, and not before.” Illustration A agrees to pay B a sum of money if a certain ship does not return. The ship is sunk. The contract can be enforced when the ship sinks. A agrees to pay B a sum of money if a certain ship does not return. The ship is sunk. The contract can be enforced when the ship sinks.”

Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders, or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto, and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose

(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority, or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories

JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court emphasized the rule that a High Court can give a writ of Certiorari rectifying the legal overabundances of a Tribunal just when the Tribunal is yet to finish up its procedures. A Certiorari writ locale is definitely not an investigative force, and for a similar explanation, the court can’t survey or recheck proof in such a case.

The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph, in an allure against the Orissa High Court judgment excusing the writ application testing the Award passed by the Labor Court in Bhubaneswar.

The apex court in General Manager, Electrical Rengali Hydro Electric Project, Orissa versus Sri Giridhari Sahu said, “The purview to give writ of Certiorari is administrative and not redrafting. The Court considering a writ utilization of Certiorari won’t wear the cap of an Appellate Court. It will not reappreciate proof.”

Court likewise set out the accompanying perceptions:

When a choice is delivered by a body manageable to Certiorari ward, certiorari could be given when a jurisdictional blunder is unmistakably settled. The jurisdictional blunder might be from an inability to notice the restrictions of its ward.

The body whose choice which goes under assault might choose an insurance truth which is likewise a jurisdictional reality and accept ward. Such a finding of reality isn’t invulnerable from being meddled with by a Writ of Certiorari. To the extent the finding of reality which is one inside the locale of the court, it is commonly a matter ‘off limits’ for the writ court. This is for the explanation that a body that has the locale to choose the matter has the purview to choose it effectively or wrongly. It would turn into a simple blunder and that too is a mistake of truth. Nonetheless, net it might add up to, it doesn’t add up to a mistake of law.

A mistake of law that becomes helpless against legal examination via Certiorari should likewise one which is obvious on the substance of the record.

A finding of reality which isn’t upheld by any proof would be unreasonable and truth be told would comprise a blunder of law empowering the writ court to meddle. It is additionally to be seen that if the staggering load of the proof doesn’t uphold the discovering, it would deliver the choice agreeable to certiorari purview.

Court anyway likewise called attention to that in the event of Writ of Certiorari, almost certainly, the Court additionally remembers that it isn’t proverbial, or that upon a finding of illicitness, a court will undoubtedly meddle. The court might in any case practice its carefulness and decrease purview except if there is show shamefulness.

Subsequently discovering such show shamefulness in the High Court’s organization, Court permitted to bid, likewise saving the Labor Court’s honor.

CONCLUSION

The allure is permitted and the judgment of the High Court is saved. The award passed by the Labour Court is saved and the application documented by the candidates is excused. Be that as it may, the appellants will return the whole sum stored with them by the 28 candidates with revenue at the pace of 8% per annum from the date of store till the date of installment. The sum will be returned back with interest as above to the

candidates worried inside a time of two months structure the date of receipt of a duplicate of this judgment.