CASE TITLE:
Project Officer, Bharatpur Open Cast Project of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. V. Darsani Kumar Sahoo and another
DATE OF ORDER:
2 December 2022
JUDGE(S):
Justice Arindam Sinha
Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra
SUBJECT
The Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, in the present case, held that writ of certiorari can not be issued to examine adequacy of evidence adduced before lower court or tribunal. The Court further went on to observe the circumstances in which issuance of a writ of certiorari can be justified.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
- The Labour Court passed an award against the petitioner-management directing it to advance promotion of opposite party no. 2 (workman) as shall be effective on the date, in which his junior Sri Pothal was given promotion in different cadre of Dumper Operators.
- The Court had also directed the management to provide the workman with all consequential financial benefits in the higher cadre from the same date.
ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER
- It was contended by the counsel appearing for the management that the workman did not meet the requisite criteria for promotion. His obtained less than qualifying marks and had attendance below 240 days.
- The counsel further submitted that the closure of evidence was brought about by the Lower Court due to the absence of his client.The following day parties were not present as the Presiding Officer was absent. He further argued that his client was not represented on the day that followed next and following which, the order in question was passed by the Lower Court on the next day.
- As such, he sought inference in judicial review to enable his client to adduce evidence that was introduced by pleading but could not be brought to record by aforesaid omission.
ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT
- The learned counsel appearing for the workman submitted that ample opportunity was afforded to the plaintiff for the same. The management was even fined for non appearance on two occasions, which had not been paid by it.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- After perusing the order sheet and the impugned award in question, the Court observed that to its satisfaction, reasonable opportunity was afforded to the management.
- The case of the workman was that there was no Department Promotion Committee (DPC), the fact that the management failed to adduce any evidence to show that, in fact, there was DPC.
- The Court further observed that in circumstances as such, law allows for a presumption of the fact that no Department Promotion Committee was held. Thus the Labour Court was right in raising this presumption against the management.
- The Hon’ble Court went on to cite the observation of the Apex Court in Syed Yakoob v. Radhakrishnan [AIR 1962 SC 477]. The Apex Court said in regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is noted that the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit a material evidence or it has erroneously admitted such evidence that was inadmissible as per law. It can also be issued if it is shown that a finding of if fact is based on no evidence. The Apex Court further stated that-
“a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of Certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding.”
CONCLUSION
In view of the above findings and observations, the Hon’ble Court concluded that there was no merit in the writ petition and was thus dismissed by the Court.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
