Supreme Court has explained the scope of Jurisdiction of High Courts to issue a writ of Certiorari. The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph was considering an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Orissa dismissing the Writ Application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the appellant question before the High Court was the Award passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
The Labour court observed that; The Labour Court found that the application under Section 33A of the Act is maintainable. This is on the basis that, had the VSS been in the true sense, there would not have been any illegality. It is found that the applicants have challenged the Scheme as illegal and the applications were obtained by misrepresentation. On that basis, it was found that the application was maintainable. Thereafter, the Labour Court goes through the evidence and has recorded the following findings: “9. I have gone through the evidence of witnesses examined on either side so also the documents exhibited. There was no demand from the side of the complainants nor there any proposal from the side of the officials for the introduction of the Voluntary Separation Scheme or Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Similarly, the SDO and the Executive Engineer of OHPC have never recommended reducing the staff strength. Admittedly Voluntary Separation Scheme was not published widely for the information of NMRs and therefore it cannot be exported that the NMRs signed the Voluntary Separation Scheme applications knowing its content and consequences. On a reference to Ext.3, it is clear that A.W.1 though submitted an application for Voluntary Separation Scheme either under pressure or 57 under a wrong notion he has withdrawn the same on 1.6.2000 but the application of Sri Sahoo was not returned back and he was given the Voluntary Separation Scheme. Therefore I am of the considered view that the Voluntary Separation Scheme was not the choice of the complainants but it was thrust upon the complainants and therefore amounts to refused of employment to the guise of Voluntary Separation Scheme. 10. In view of the discussions made above, the action of the management opposite parties in implementing the Voluntary Separation Scheme forcibly or by misrepresentation is illegal and unjustified. The complainants are entitled to be reinstated in service and are deemed to be continuing in service from the date of the Voluntary Separation Scheme was implemented. The management opposite parties have paid a certain amount to the complainants being the benefits under the Voluntary Separation Scheme. The complainants will be eligible to get 70% (seventy percent) back wages and the amount already paid by the management to the complainants towards the Voluntary Separation Scheme benefit shall be adjusted. The Award shall be implemented by the opposite parties within one month from the date of its Notification for publication.”
The Supreme Court accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The award passed by the Labour Court is set aside and the application filed by the applicants is dismissed. However, the appellants will return the entire amount deposited with them by the 28 applicants with interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment. The amount shall be returned back with interest as above to the 82 applicants concerned within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The above legaljudgment in India recently observed the scope of the writ of certiorari.
To Get More Legal Judgments In India...DOWNLOAD OUR APP
Read the Judgement
Note:- We try our level best to avoid any kind of abusive content posted by users. Kindly report to us if you notice any, [email protected]ail.com