M/S. ESSEN DEINKI versus RAJIV KUMAR

M/S. ESSEN DEINKI versus RAJIV KUMAR

The workman had not completed 240 days of service, as admitted in evidence; the Labour Court’s finding was one of fact based on evidence and not perverse. The High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, erred by reappreciating evidence and reversing the Labour Court without finding perversity. Accordingly, the reinstatement order was set aside and the Labour Court’s conclusion restored.

Parties
Appellant: Essen Deinki; Respondent: Rajiv Kumar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Punjab and Haryana High Court's Order in C.w.p. No. 15275 of 1999
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Industrial Disputes Act Section 25 F, Article 227 of Constitution, Evidence of 240 Days' Work, Termination of Workman, Scope of High Court's Revisional Jurisdiction
Labour Law Constitutional Law Industrial Disputes Act Section 25 F Article 227 of Constitution Evidence of 240 Days' Work Termination of Workman Scope of High Court's Revisional Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Essen Deinki

Appellant

Rajiv Kumar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Punjab and Haryana High Court's Order in C.w.p. No. 15275 of 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the workman had completed 240 days of service to attract Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with a finding of fact by the Labour Court under Article 227 of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

The workman had not completed 240 days of service, as admitted in evidence; the Labour Court’s finding was one of fact based on evidence and not perverse. The High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, erred by reappreciating evidence and reversing the Labour Court without finding perversity. Accordingly, the reinstatement order was set aside and the Labour Court’s conclusion restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned order of the High Court set aside and quashed.
  • Order of the Labour Court restored.