Summary
Ninety workers obtained reinstatement and back wages after alleging that voluntary-separation applications had been procured under the pretext of regularisation. The Court found their allegations inadequately pleaded and proved, and the Labour Court’s contrary finding perverse in light of ignored documentary evidence, union discussions and accepted benefits. Certiorari intervention was warranted. The award was set aside, with repayment of sums redeposited by twenty-eight workers.
Issues
- Whether the Labour Court’s findings were immune from certiorari review.
- Whether fraud, undue influence or involuntary separation was established for relief under Sections 33 and 33A.
Provisions considered
- Sections 33(1) and 33A, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947Voluntary acceptance of separation did not establish the contravention necessary for the workers’ complaint. (¶¶ 30, 31, 34, 85)
- Sections 16, 17 and 18, Indian Contract Act, 1872Fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence are distinct grounds requiring appropriate factual foundation; the allegations and evidence here did not establish them. (¶¶ 40, 41, 43, 44, 50, 72)
Held
- Certiorari is supervisory and does not permit ordinary reappreciation of facts. Jurisdictional errors, apparent legal errors and perverse findings unsupported by evidence or wholly unwarranted by it remain reviewable. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
- Although the CPC pleading rule did not directly govern the industrial complaint, its principle of fair notice applied. Grave allegations of fraud required sufficient particulars; the workers’ shifting cases of fraud, force and undue influence lacked the necessary pleading and proof. (¶¶ 38, 39, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76)
- The Labour Court ignored signed and witnessed applications, payments, and union demands and discussions showing awareness of the scheme. Absence of a worker demand for introducing the scheme was irrelevant; the single withdrawal letter did not establish the pleaded collective case. (¶¶ 69, 70, 71, 77, 78, 81, 83, 84)
- The workers voluntarily accepted the scheme and its benefits. Reinstatement with seventy per cent back wages on the unsupported contrary finding would cause manifest injustice, warranting discretionary interference. (¶ 85)
Result
The appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment and Labour Court award set aside, and the workers’ application dismissed without costs. Amounts redeposited by twenty-eight workers were ordered returned with eight per cent annual interest from deposit to payment within two months of receipt of the judgment.