High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/14436/2016dismissed

Market Committee Khanna Ludhiana Th Its Secretary And ORS v. The President/General Secretary Punjab Sannati Mazdoor Sangthan And ORS

2023-12-22Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger10 pages

!" #$%$!& &' # () *+

"# , -.,/0 0 $

! %& ' # (! %& ' # ) * +++++

0 /1.2 1.

Present writ petition has been filed %

,,-,,. '

'/ ! ! '

#!( 0102,0*- 3%4 567 # ! 8''

/ 3 ' ' 9 97 (

*,0.*112 0-06*11,& ( 3 7 '

! &

' *:0.*1-; *,0.*112 /(

' ( 3 7

!# ( #

4 # ( % ' # # '

#!(0102,0*-3%4567 !#

( # , < '

# ) *= !

# !

*10;,00: # < (

( " ( ##

060.*1-:(# (' 0*0-*1-.? ' ( # #& 5 5@

('2*0:*1.,/## ,0***166 ( ( ! #& 5 5@

(

!@/") ,00 ,0***160 ;01 ;-. ' / ' (# # & *:0,*160

? ( # ! A *162( ' ' ( '' ' ( &

;01 '/ & !

,-0,*110?(! # # / ' ## #'(

##! ' !

,-0,*110 ' % >

B! (

# #

( ' !

# & !

0-***110 ' ( " '

(

& # ' (

(

& ( # !

,-0;*11* ( &

' ( '

(& ( ! @ ## ( &

*,0.*112

#& 5 5@

( (

!# *,0.*112' ' &

200;,00*' !! '# 2 / ' '

##,:06,002 ' < !! *,0.*112#

' &

( " ' (& ## ##( & ,*02,00;A

# ) *=

! # & !

*60;,00:

( ( &

' #

('060.*1-:

# '

( C*6D

!( A '

; '

' " ( # & #(

$5 3/7 ! (

# # '( 3//7

E ' ' ( ( ! ' ! 3///78

' &

'( ;01

'/ (

' &

#" 3/7

((

#& 5 5@ '

" ) 1*,0.*112 ( (

( '

' # &

# '

37 # &

( !

## # '' '

( # F 9F ! (# &( (

!5( A & !# A # ' ( # ( ' # ! '

*,0.*112 3/7) #

( # ( 5! ' ## '# !' # ! ' *,0.*112 3//7 # '

'# >"&

' # ( #

( : 8 '# ! & & (

' ( 0102,0*-3%4567 ! *,0.*112 0-06*11, ' ( " (

3 '

! &

*:0.*1-; *,0.*112 ( < !!! &! ' (0102,0*- 3%4567 # '

( # ' - ' # ! ' (

( '

# !

# '(

( ! '' E # '( /

( (( !

#& 5 5@ #' &

& ! #& ' '

! ' (

# ' '% "< 5( #& ! ( ! /5 ! '(

! ' # '

(( !

'( # ' ( ! '

' # # ' ( ! ( # ! (0102,0*-3%4567# . ' # ) * ## # ' #

! (# ( '

(

' ' ( 4

/ '

( '

( & (

( ? ' ' %

' # ) *# '

' ( # 6 /& ' # # ## ( 1 / ('

! ' & ( ( &

&' &

' & &

(# *:0,*160' ( # !A

& 010,*162/ ' # &

( (! # 0,02*110' ( (! *,0.*112%

! A (! ( '># ( ! &

' ( " ' &

# *,0.*112 &

?' (

*,0.*112'##

( (#! ! &

( ' *:0.*1-; *,0.*112 ' ! ' '

%! E

#!(

( !3 ''

'8''

' 5 5

7(4

GG5* ( ! > )

*10;,00:3H4G5*7 E # '

4 *60;,00: 3H4G5,7 ' ! ( E & # ' '( @H4G5;G5:

!# ' %

( # ( 4

'GG5, ## '

( ( '

E (

# '

' ( % ! # ( " ( ( !

#& 5 5@ ( #'

& ! #& ( & '

' 9( 9 ,37 ' / > #% *1;.3 ' '9*1;.% 97 ! (( 5 (#'

& ! #& ?

( '' ' (9( 9 '

,37 '*1;.% ' # ' #

' (

( !' '

! 9 ! '

! /

& ( '

! '

(# & # ' / '

! #& *0 ' ( ( !

' '

( ( ' #

! & (

5 & !' ( '( #

( ( # ' & ( (

F 9# '/

!"#$ %& '() * +

/"#$ %& #0/ ** @ he parameters for exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in cases involving challenge to the award passed by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal and orders passed by other judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, are well defined. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or Tribunals. A writ can also be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or the Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, i.e. it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order or where the procedure adopted by it is opposed to the principles of natural justice.

However, it must be remembered that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and not appellate one. This necessarily means that the finding of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal, as a result of the appreciation of evidence, cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings except when the judgment, order or award suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record.

6 can be corrected. Broadly speaking, an error of law is one which can be discovered on a bare reading of the judgment, order or award under challenge along with the documents which have been relied upon by the inferior Court, Tribunal or quasi-judicial authority. An error, the discovery of which is possible only after a detailed scrutiny of the evidence produced by the parties and lengthy debate at the bar cannot be regarded as an error of law for the purpose of a writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal can be corrected only if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Court or the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence and the same has influenced the impugned finding.

Similarly, a finding of fact based on no evidence would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. However, sufficiency or adequacy of the evidence relied upon by the inferior Court or Tribunal or the quasi-judicial authority cannot be gone into by the High Court while considering the prayer for issue of a writ of certiorari. Likewise, the mere, possibility of forming a different opinion on re-appreciation of evidence by the parties is not sufficient for issue of a writ of certiorari"Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 477"; "Shaikh Mahammad Umarsaheb v. Kadalaskar Hasham Karimsab and others, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 61"; "Jitendra Singh Rathor v. Sh. Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. and another, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 976"; "R.S. Saini v.

State of Punjab and others, 1999(4) RCR (Civil) 253 (SC) : J.T. 1999(6) S.C. 507" and "Mohd. Shahnawaz Akhtar and another v. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi and others, J.T. 2002(8) S.C. 69".

12.

# ! & ( ''

/ '

& ( '

! & & ! ## & (

#!( A #& ! & %

/ '

( #

*2 %# !##

37 '

&' # () *+ 1 0 2

*G# ! $ I) ,G# $ I)