Balwant Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors

INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABo&oHARYANAo AToCHANDIGARH **** CWP-16280-2014 thDateoofoDecision:o14 oDecember,o2023 BalwantoSingh o.....oPetitioner Versus StateoofoHaryanaoandoothers ooooo.....oRespondents CORAM:oHON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoHARSHoBUNGER Present: Mr.oVikasoKuthiala,oAdvocate forotheopetitioner. Mr.oPraveenoChanderoGoyal,oAddl.oA.G.,oHaryana. Mr.oJasmeetoSinghoBedi,oAdvocate fororespondentsoNo.2oando3. ***** HARSHoBUNGERoJ.o(ORAL)

¶1Petitioner o (Balwant o Singh)o has o filed o the o instant o writ petition ounder oArticles o 226/227 o of o the o Constitution o of o India o seeking setting o aside oof o award o dated o 13.01.2014 o (Annexure o P-2) o passed o by learnedoIndustrialoTribunal-cum-LabouroCourt,oHisaro(hereinafteroreferredoto aso'theoTribunal'),owherebyotheoreferenceoofoindustrialodisputeoraisedoby petitioner,oregardingoterminationoofohisoservices,ohasobeenodecidedoagainst him. Aofurtheroprayerohasobeenomadeoforodirectingotheorespondentsoto takeobackotheopetitioneroinoserviceoandotoograntoallotheoconsequentialobenefits toohim.

¶2Briefly,otheopetitioneroraisedoanoindustrialodisputeowithoregardoto terminationoofohisoservicesobyoservingodemandonoticeodatedo15.05.2012oand uponofailureoofotheoconciliationoproceedings,otheosameowasoreferredotoothe Tribunalobelowoforoadjudication.

¶3Asoperotheoclaimoofopetitioner,oheowasoappointedoasoaoFiremanoin theoOfficeoofoMarketoCommittee,oFatehabad,oafterofollowingotheoproper procedure.oPetitioneroclaimedothatoheowasoappointedoonocontractobasis throughoplacement/outsourcingoagency,onamelyoM/soMillenniumoManpower Agency o (respondent o No.5 o herein), o and o he o worked o continuously o from

03.11.2006otoo30.07.2011oinotheoOfficeoofoMarketoCommittee,oFatehabad underotheosupervisionoandocontroloofoMarketoCommittee,oFatehabadoandoM/s MillenniumoManpoweroAgency.oItowasostatedothatotheopetitionerowasobeing paidotheowagesoasofixedobyotheoDeputyoCommissionerofromotimeotootime underotheoMinimumoWagesoAct.oPetitionerofurtheroclaimedothatohisoservices were o terminated o w.e.f. o 01.08.2011, o in o violation o of o the o provisions o of Sectionso25-N,o25-F,o25-Goando25-HoofotheoIndustrialoDisputesoAct,o1947 (hereinafterotoobeoreferredoaso'theo1947oAct').

¶4Onotheo otherohand,o theoaforesaidoclaimoofo petitionerowas opposedobyotheorespondent-Department,oi.e.oHaryanaoStateoAgricultural MarketingoBoard/MarketoCommitteeo(respondentsoNo.1otoo3oherein)oby raisingoaopreliminaryosubmissionothatotheoCommitteeowasonotoano'Industry' norotheopetitionerowasoao'workman'oinotermsoofoSectionso2(j)oando2(s)oofothe 1947oAct,orespectively.oOnomerits,otheorespondent-Departmentostatedothatothe petitionerowasoappointedoasoaoFiremanoinotheoOfficeoofoMarketoCommittee, Fatehabadothroughoaoplacement/outsourcingoagency,ohowever,oitowasofurther submitted o that o the o petitioner o was o not o appointed o only o through M/soMillenniumoManpoweroAgencyo(respondentoNo.5),oratheroheowas engagedothroughodifferentoplacement/outsourcingoagencies,oi.e.oM/soDahiya SecurityoandoPlacementoServices,oHisar,oM/soShreeoGaneshoSecurity,oJind, Vikram o Security, o Hisar, o Narwal o Super o Security, o Panipat o and M/so Millenniumo Manpowero Agency. oIto waso theo stando oforespondent-Departmentothatotheopetitionerohadoworkedoonlyoupotoo31.03.2011othrough placement/outsourcingoagenciesoandonotoupotoo30.07.2011,oasoclaimedoby him.oItowasofurtheroclarifiedothatoaftero31.03.2011,otheopetitionerowasonot engagedoasotheocontractoofotheoBoardowithoM/soMillenniumoManpower Agency o (respondent o No.5 o herein) o had o expired o and o thereafter o w.e.f.

01.10.2011,oanotheroplacement/outsourcingoagency,oi.e.oEagleoEyeoSecurity, wasoprovidedotheocontract. Withotheoaforesaidosubmissions,otheostandowasotakenobyothe respondent-Departmentothatothereowasonoorelationshipoofoemployeroand employeeobetweenotheoDepartmentoandotheopetitioner.oAccordingly,oprayer forodismissaloofoclaimoofotheopetitionerowasomade.

¶5Fromotheopleadingsoofotheoparties,otheoTribunalobelowoframed theofollowingoissues:- "1.oWhetherotheopetitionerowasotheoemployeeoofoHaryanaoState AgriculturaloMarketingoBoardooroofotheoContractor?oOPoParties.

2.oooIfoitoisofoundothatotheopetitionerowasotheoemployeeoofoHaryanaoState AgriculturaloMarketigoBoard,owhetheroterminationoofohisoservicesowas illegal,oifoso,otoowhatoreliefoheoisoentitledoto?oOPoParties.

3.oooRelief"

¶6Thereafter,obothotheopartiesoledotheirorespectiveoevidenceobefore theoTribunalobelow.oPetitioner,oinoorderotooproveohisoclaim,oappearedohimself as o WW-1 o and o on o the o other o hand, o respondent-Department o examined Sh. o Gandhi o Lal, o Assistant o Fire o Station o Officer, o Market o Committee, FatehabadoasoMW-1.

¶7Uponoconsideringotheomaterial/evidenceoavailableoonorecord, Tribunalobelowoansweredotheoreferenceoagainstotheopetitionerovideoaward datedo13.01.2014o(AnnexureoP-2)obyoholdingothatoheowasonotoentitledotooany relief.oAccordingly,opetitionerofiledotheoinstantowritopetitionobeforeothisoCourt.

¶8LearnedocounseloforotheopetitionerosubmitsothatotheoTribunal belowohasoerredoinolawoandofactoinorejectingotheoclaimoofopetitioneroand answering o the o reference o against o him, o without o appreciating o the material/evidence o available o on o record. o It o is o submitted o that o there o was sufficientomaterialoavailableoonorecordotooshowothatotheopetitionerowasoinofact anoemployeeoofotheorespondent-Departmento(respondentsoNo.1otoo3oherein). Itoisofurtherosubmittedothatoevenoifoitoisopresumedothatotheopetitionerowas appointedobyotheorespondent-Departmentothroughotheocontractoroevenothen theototalosupervisionoandocontrolooverotheopetitionerowasooforespondent No.3o–oMarketoCommittee,oHisar;oaccordingly,otheorelationshipoofoemployer andoemployeeobetweenotheorespondent-Departmentoandotheopetitionerowas established,ohowever,otheosameowasowronglyonotoconsideredobyotheoTribunal below.oLearnedocounseloforotheopetitionerocontendsothatoneitherotheoMarket Committee,oHisaro(respondentoNo.3)onorotheocontractorsowereoregistered underotheoprovisionsoofotheoContractoLabouro(Regulationso&oAbolition)oAct, 1970o(hereinafteroreferredotooaso'theo1970oAct'),oaccordingly,otheoimpugned awardodatedo13.01.2014o(AnnexureoP-2)oisonotosustainable. With o the o aforesaid o submissions, o learned o counsel o for o the petitionerohasoprayedoforoallowingotheoinstantowritopetitionobyosettingoaside awardodatedo13.01.2014o(AnnexureoP-2)opassedobyotheoTribunaloandofurther directingotheorespondentsotootakeobackotheopetitioneroinoserviceoandotoogrant allotheoconsequentialobenefitsotoohim.

¶9Perocontra,olearnedoStateocounseloappearingofororespondents No.1otoo3;ohasoopposedotheoprayeromadeobyolearnedocounseloforotheopetitioner byosubmittingothatotheoTribunalobelowohasopassedoaowelloreasonedoand justifiedoorder,owhichodoesonotocalloforoanyointerferenceobyothisoCourt. LearnedoStateocounselosubmitsothatotheopetitionerowasoengagedothroughoan outsourcing o agency, o for o which o agreement o was o executed o between o the Department o and o the o contractor, o which o was o a o genuine o contract; o and accordingly,oitowasosubmittedothatothereowasonoorelationshipoofoemployeroand employeeobetweenotheoDepartmentoandotheopetitioner.oAccordingly,olearned Stateocounselohasoprayedoforodismissaloofotheoinstantowritopetition.

¶10Iohaveoheardolearnedocounseloforotheopartiesoandoperusedothe paperobookowithotheiroableoassistance.

¶11Inotheoinstantocase,otheoTribunalobelowowhileodecidingothe referenceovideoawardodatedo13.01.2014o(AnnexureoP-2)oheldoasounder:- "23. oAfterohearingotheoLdoARsoofotheopartiesoandogoing throughotheoevidenceoonotheofile.oIoamotheoviewothatotheoonly questionoforodeterminationoinothisocaseoisowhetherotheoalleged contractualosystemowasomerelyoaoruse/camouflageooroshamoto evadeocomplianceowithovariousobeneficialolegislationsosooasoto depriveotheoworkersoofotheobenefitothereunderooroitowas genuine.oItoisowellosettledothatoifothisocourtofindsothatothe contractobetweenotheoprincipaloemployeroandotheocontractoroto be o a o sham, o nominal o or o merely o a o camouflage o to o deny employmentobenefitsotootheoemployeeoandothatothereowasoinofact aodirectoemployment,oitocanogiveoreliefotootheoemployeeoby holdingothatotheoworkmanoisotheodirectoemployeeoofothe principleoemployeroandotoodoosooitocanoliftotheoveil.oTheotwo wellorecognizedotestsotoofindooutowhetherotheocontractolabourois theodirectoemployeeoofotheoprincipleoemployeroare:-oi)owhether theoprincipaloemployeropaysosalaryoinsteadoofocontractor,oandAPURVA

ii)owhetherotheoprincipaloemployerocontrolsoandosupervisesothe workoofotheoemployeeoasolaidodownobyotheoHon'bleoApexoCourt inoBharatoLal'soCaseo(supra)oInothisocaseobothotheotestsoare satisfied.

24.oItoisoprovedofromotheoevidenceothatotheosalaryotoothe petitionerowasobeingopaidobyotheocontractors.oThisofactois admittedobyotheopetitioneroinohisostatementoasoWW1oandohis furtheroprovedofromotheostatementoofoMW1oSh.oGandhioLal, AssistantoFireoStationoOfficerowhoseostatementoonosaidopoint wasonotochallengedoinohisocrossoexamination.oTheocontroloand supervision o ono the o work o of o theo petitioner o as o definedo in InternationaloAirportoAuthorityoofoIndia'socaseo(supra)owas alsooofotheocontractors.

25.o Theo nexto questiono which o arises o for o determinationo is whetherotheocontractionsonamelyoM/soShreeoGaneshoSecurity, JindoVikramoSecurityoHisar,oNarwaloSuperoSecurity,oPanipat andoM/soMillenniumoManpower,oAgencyo(respondentonoo5) wereoregisteredounderotheoContractoLabouro(Regulationo& Abolition)oActo1970ooronot,oifonototheoconsequencesothereof.oNo documentohasobeenoplacedoonotheofileotooproveothatothe contractorsoM/soShreeoGaneshoSecurity,oJindoVikramoSecurity, Hisar,oNarwaloSuperoSecurity,oPanipatoandoM/soMillennium Manpower,oAgencyo(respondentono.o5)owereoregisteredounder theoContractoLabouro(Regulationo&oAbolition)oActo1970oasothe licensedocontractors,obutoinoabsenceoofoanyootheroevidenceothis factoaloneodoesonotoleadotootheoconclusionothatotheoContract Labourosystemowasoaoshamooroaocamouflageoasoheldobyothe Hon'bleoApexoCourtoinoMunicipaloCorporationoofoGreater Mumbai'socaseo(supra).

26.oHavingobeenoarrivedoatotheoconclusionothatotheopetitioner wasonotoemployedobyorespondentsonoo1otoo3odirectlyoandothere was o no o relationship o of o master o and o servant o between o the respondentsonoo1otoo3oandotheopetitioneroandofurtherohaving beingoarrivedoatotheoconclusionothatotheopetitionerowasoinofact employedobyorespondentono.o3othroughoplacement/outsourcing agenciesonamelyoM/soShreeoGaneshoSecurity,oJind,oVikramAPURVA Security,oHisar, oNarwaloSuperoSecurity,oPanipato andoM/s MillenniumoManpower.oAgencyo(respondentonoo5)oforothe period o from o 01.04.2008 o to o 30.04.2008, o 03.05.2008 o to

31.08.2009,o 01.09.2009o to o 31.08.2010o ando 13.09.2010o to

31.03.2011,otheopetitioneroisonotoentitledotooanyoreliefoasohe wasorelievedoofohisodutyoonlyoafterotheocompletionoofothe contractooforespondentonoo5owithorespondentonoo3oandoheohad notocompletedomoreothano240odaysoduringohisoemploymentowith respondentono.o3othroughorespondentonoo5.oHadoheocompleted moreothano240odaysoandotheocontractooforespondentono.o3owith respondentono.o5owouldohaveobeenoinoexistence,otheomatter would o have o been o otherwise. o Therefore o the o violation o of provisionsocontainedounderoSectiono25-Foisonotoproved.

27.oTheopetitionerohasoalsooallegedoviolationoofoprovisions containedounderoSectionso25-Goando25-HoofotheoActosubmitting thatoatotheotimeohisoservicesowereoterminated,ojunioroemployees toohimowereoretainedoandothereafteroneworecruitmentotoothe postowasomadeowithoutoaffordingohimoanoopportunityoofore-employment,obutoheodidonotoleadoanyoevidenceotooproveosaid fact.o He o dido not o discloseo theo name oof o anyo person o who accordingotoohimowasojuniorotoohimoandowasoretainedoatothe timeoofoterminatingohisoservicesoorowasorecruitedothereafteroby respondent o no o 5 o the o last o placement/outsourcing o agency through owhom o he o was o employed. o Therefore, o violationo of provisionsocontainedounderoSectionso25-Goando25-HoofotheoAct isonotoproved.oThisoissueois,otherefore,odecidedoagainstothe petitioner. RELIEF

28.oForotheoreasonsodiscussedohereinbefore,otheopetitionerohas notobeenofoundoentitledotooanyoreliefoand,otherefore,oreference madeotoothisocourtostandsodecidedoaccordinglyoagainstothe petitioner."

¶12Aoperusaloofotheoaboveoextractedofindingsowouldomanifestothat uponoconsiderationoofotheomaterial/evidenceoavailableoonorecord,oitohasobeen heldobyotheoTribunalobelowothatotheosalaryoofopetitionerowasobeingopaidobyothe contractorsoandotheosaidofactowasoadmittedobyotheopetitioneroinohisostatement andotheosameowasofurtherosubstantiatedobyotheostatementoofoSh.oGandhioLal, AssistantoFireoStationoOfficer,oMarketoCommittee,oFatehabado(MW-1).oItohas beenofurtheroheldothatocontroloandosupervisionoonotheoworkoofopetitionerowas ofotheocontractors.oAs oregardsotheopleaoofopetitionerothatoneitherothe respondent-Departmento(respondentsoNo.1otoo3oherein)onorotheocontractors wereoregisteredounderotheo1970oAct,otherefore,otheocontractosystemowasoa shamoandocamouflage;osufficeoitotoosayothatotheosaidoissueoisonoomoreores integraoasotheopositionostandsosettledobyotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinothe caseoof o"SteeloAuthorityoofoIndiaoLtd.ov.oNationaloUnionoWateroFront Workers",o2001(4)oooSCTo1,owhereinotheofollowingofindingsowereoreturned:o-o "124. Theoupshotoofotheoaboveodiscussionoisooutlinedothuso:

(1)o(a)oBeforeoJanuaryo28,o1986,otheodeterminationoofothe question o whether o Central o Government o or o the o State GovernmentoisotheoappropriateoGovernmentoinorelationotooan establishment,owillodepend,oinoviewoofotheodefinitionoofothe expressiono"appropriateoGovernment"oasostoodoinotheoCLRA Act,oonotheoanswerotooaofurtheroquestion,oisotheoindustryounder considerationocarriedoonobyoorounderotheoauthorityoofothe Central o Government o or o does o it o pertain o to o anyo specified controlledoindustry;oorotheoestablishmentoofoanyorailway, cantonment o board,o majoro port,o mineo oro oil ofieldo oro the establishmentoofobankingooroinsuranceocompany?oIfotheoanswer isoinotheoaffirmative,otheoCentraloGovernmentowillobeothe appropriateoGovernment;ootherwiseoisorelationotooanyoother establishmento theoGovernment oof otheoStateoino which othe establishment o was o situated, o would o be o the o appropriate Government.

(b)oAfterotheosaidodateoinoviewoofotheonewodefinitionoofothat expression,otheoanswerotootheoquestionoreferredotooabove,ohas toobeofoundoinoclauseo(a)oofoSectiono2o oofotheoIndustrial Disputes o Act, o if o (i) o the o concerned o Central o Government company/undertakingooroanyoundertakingoisoincludedotherein eoonomine,ooro(ii)oanyoindustryoisocarriedoono(a)obyoorounder theoauthorityoofotheoCentraloGovernment,ooro(b)obyorailway company;ooro(c)obyospecifiedocontrolledoindustry,othenothe CentraloGovernment o willo beo theo appropriateo Government otherwise o in o relation o to o any o other o establishment, o the GovernmentoofotheoStateoinowhichothatootheroestablishmentois situated,owillobeotheoappropriateoGovernment.

(2)o(a)oAonotificationounderoSectiono10(1)oofotheoCLRAoAct prohibitingoemploymentoofocontractolabouroinoanyoprocess, operationoorootheroworkoinotheoanyoestablishmentohasotoobe issuedobyotheoappropriateoGovernmento:

(1)oafteroconsultingowithotheoCentraloAdvisoryoBoardoorothe StateoAdvisoryoBoard,oasotheocaseomayobe,oand;

(2)ohavingoregardotoo

(i)oconditionsoofoworkoandobenefitsoprovidedoforotheocontract labouroinotheoestablishmentoinoquestion;oand

(ii)ootherorelevantofactorsoincludingothoseomentionedoinosub-sectiono(2)oofoSectiono10;

(b)oinasmuchoasotheoimpugnedonotificationoissuedobyothe CentraloGovernmentoonoDecembero9,o1976odoesonotosatisfyothe aforesaidorequirementsoofoSectiono10oitoisoquashedobutoweodo sooprospectivelyoi.e.ofromotheodateoofothisojudgmentoandosubject tootheoclarificationothatoonotheobasisoofothisojudgmentonooorder passedooronooactionotakenogivingoeffectotootheosaidonotification onoorobeforeotheodateoofothisojudgment,oshallobeocalledoin questionoinoanyotribunaloorocourtoincludingoaoHighoCourtoifoit hasootherwiseoattainedofinalityoand/oroitohasobeenoimplemented.

(3)oNeitheroSectiono10oofotheoCLRA oActonoroanyoother provisiono ino theo Act,o whether oexpresslyoorobyo necessary implication,oprovidesoforoautomaticoabsorptionoofocontract labouroonoissuingoaonotificationobyoappropriateoGovernment underosub-sectiono(1)oofoSectiono10,oprohibitingoemploymentoof contractolabour,oinoanyoprocess,ooperationoorootheroworkoin any o establishment. o Consequently o the o principal o employer cannotobeorequiredotooorderoabsorptionoofotheocontractolabourAPURVA workingoinotheoconcernedoestablishment.

(4)oWeoover-ruleotheojudgmentoofothisocourtoinoAiroIndia'socase (supra)oprospectivelyoandodeclareothatoanyodirectionoissuedoby anyoindustrialoadjudicator/anyocourtoincludingoHighoCourt,ofor absorptionoofocontractolabourofollowingotheojudgmentoofoinoAir India'socaseo(supra),oshalloholdogoodoandothatotheosameoshall notobeosetoaside,oalteredooromodifiedoonotheobasisoofothis judgmentoinocasesowhereosuchoaodirectionohasobeenogivenoeffect tooandoitohasobecomeofinal.

(5)oOnoissuanceoofoprohibitiononotificationounderoSectiono10(1) ofotheoCLRAoActoprohibitingoemploymentoofocontractolabouroor otherwise,oinoanoindustrialodisputeobroughtobeforeoitobyoany contract o labour o in o regard o to o conditions o of o service, o the industrialoadjudicatorowill ohaveotooconsidero theoquestion whetherotheocontractorohasobeenointerposedoeitheroonothe groundoofotheohavingoundertakenotooproduceoanyogivenoresult forotheoestablishmentooroforosupplyoofocontractolabouroforowork ofotheoestablishmentounderoaogenuineocontractooroisoaomere ruse/camouflageotooevadeocomplianceoofovariousobeneficial legislationso so o aso too depriveo theo workers o of o theo benefit thereunder.oIfotheocontractoisofoundotoobeonotogenuineobutoa mereocamouflage,otheoso-calledocontractolabourowillohaveotoobe treatedoasoemployeesoofotheoprincipaloemployerowhooshallobe directedotooregulariseotheoservicesoofotheocontractolabouroinothe concernedoestablishmentosubjectotootheoconditionsoasomayobe specified o byo it o foro that o purposeo in o theo light o of o parao 6 hereunder.

(6)oIfotheocontractoisofoundotoobeogenuineoandoprohibition notificationounderoSectiono10(1)oofotheoCLRAoActoinorespectoof the o concerned o establishment o has o been o issued o by o the appropriateoGovernment,oprohibitingoemploymentoofocontract labouro in o anyo process, o operationo oro other o worko of o any establishmentoandowhereoinosuchoprocess,ooperationoofoother workoofotheoestablishmentotheoprincipaloemployerointendsoto employoregularoworkmenoheoshallogiveopreferenceotoothe erstwhileocontractolabour,oifootherwiseofoundosuitableoand,oifAPURVA necessary,obyorelaxingotheoconditionoasotoomaximumoage appropriatelyotakingointooconsiderationotheoageoofotheoworkers atotheotimeoofotheiroinitialoemploymentobyotheocontractoroand alsoorelaxingotheoconditionoasotooacademicoqualificationsoother thanotechnicaloqualifications."

¶13Stillofurther,otheoeffectoofonon-registrationoofocontractorounder theo1970oActowasoconsideredobyoaoDivisionoBenchoofothisoCourtoin "BalwinderoSinghov.oPunjaboStateoElectricityoBoard",o2011(4)oS.C.T.o231, whereinoitowasoobservedoasounder:- "6.oTheoabsenceoofoanyoregistrationoofotheolabourocontractor underotheoprovisionsoofotheoAct,oinoouroconsideredoview,owill not o alter o theo situation.o The o same o may o make o theo labour contractoroliableoforopenaloandootheroactionocontemplatedoby theoprovisionsoofotheoAct.oTheoabsenceoofoanyosuchoregistration ofotheolabourocontractorocannotoobliterateotheoengagementoof workmenobyotheocontractor;oneitherotheosaidofactocanoalterothe statusoofotheoworkmenotoooneooforegularoemployeesounderothe principaloemployer…"

¶14Inoviewoofotheoaforesaidolegaloposition,omereonon-registration underotheo1970oActoisoofonooconsequenceoandoonlyoonothatobasis,oitocannotobe heldothatocontractoexecutedobetweenotheoDepartmentoandotheocontractorowasoa shamoandoaocamouflage,omoreosoowhenotheopetitionerohasofailedotooproduce anyonotificationounderoSectiono10oofotheo1970oAct,oprohibitingotheolabour contractoinotheoestablishmentooforespondent-Department.

¶15Asoregardsotheosubmissionoofopetitionerothatohisoservicesohave beenoterminatedoinoviolationoofotheoprovisionsoofotheo1947oActoisoconcerned, it o is o observed o that o the o petitioner o was o employed o through o different placement/outsourcingoagencies,oregardingowhichoaofurtherofindingohasobeen returnedobyotheoTribunalothatopetitionerohadonotocompletedomoreothano240 daysoofoworkowithotheorespondent-Departmentothroughotheocontractor,oand a!!ordingly,othereowasonoo iolationoofotheopro isionsoofoSe!tiono':3<oofothe .A0,oA!t.o-tohaso!o%eoonore!ordothatotheopetitionerowasorelie edofro%ohis dutyoonlyoaftero!o%pletionoofotheo!ontra!toofotheooutsour!ingoagen!y,oi.e. Millenniu%oManpoweroAgen!yo1respondento&o.:4. .*. <urther,oasoregardsotheopleaoofopetitioneroregardingo iolationoof Se!tionso':3#oando':3Hoofotheo.A0,oA!toiso!on!erned,oitoisoo5ser edothat petitionerohadofailedotooleadoanyoe iden!eotooshowothatowhi!ho;unior e%ployeeotoohi%owasoretainedoinoser i!eoandowhi!hoe%ployeeowasofreshly re!ruitedotootheopostoafteroter%inationoofohisoser i!es.o6heodetailsoofosu!h personsowereonotopro idedo5yotheopetitioneroandoinotheoa5sen!eoofo%aterial parti!ularsoandotheorele antoe iden!e,onoofindingo!ouldoha eo5eenoreturned 5yotheo6ri5unalo5elowothatothereowaso iolationoofoSe!tionso':3#oando':3Hoof theo.A0,oA!t. .,. <urther,othe parameters for exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226o 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. This is the abstract statement of law, but the vexed question is as to what is an error of law apparent on the face of the record and in what circumstances a finding of fact recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal or a quasi-judicial authority 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 certiorario"Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 477"; "Shaikh Mahammad Umarsaheb v. Kadalaskar HashamoKarimsaboandoothers,oAIRo1970oSupremeoCourto61";o"Jitendra SinghoRathorov.oSh.oBaidyanathoAyurvedoBhawanoLtd.oandoanother,oAIR 1984oSupremeoCourto976"; o"R.S.oSainiov.oStateoofoPunjaboandoothers, 1999(4)oRCRo(Civil)o253o(SC)o:oJ.T.o1999(6)oS.C.o507"o and o"Mohd. ShahnawazoAkhtaroandoanotherov.oIstoA.D.J.oVaranasioandoothers,oJ.T. 2002(8)oS.C.o69".

¶18Consideringotheototalityoofocircumstancesoinoviewoofotheolegal principlesoindicatedoabove,oIoamoofotheoconsideredoviewothatothereoisonooscope foroanyointerferenceowithotheofindings/AwardorenderedobyolearnedoTribunal below;oresultantly,otheoinstantopetitionofailsoandotheosameoisodismissed.

¶19Allopendingoapplication(s),oifoany,oshalloalsoostandoclosed. th14 oDecember,o2023 o(HARSHoBUNGER) Apurva oooooooooooJUDGE

1.oWhetherospeaking/reasoned : Yes/No

2.oWhetheroreportable : Yes/No