Ramesh Chand v. Po Labour Court II Faridabad and Anr

INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABo&oHARYANAo AToCHANDIGARH **** CWP-8372-2016 stDateoofoDecision:o1 oDecember,o2023 RameshoChand o.....oPetitioner Versus TheoPresidingoOfficer,oIndustrialoTribunal-cum-LabouroCourt-II,oFaridabad andoanother ooooo.....oRespondents CORAM:oHON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoHARSHoBUNGER Present: Mr.oShivoKumar,oAdvocate forotheopetitioner. Mr.oKuldeepoSharma,oAdvocateofor Mr.oR.N.oLohan,oAdvocate fororespondentoNo.2. ***** HARSHoBUNGERoJ.o(ORAL)

¶1Petitionero(RameshoChand)o hasofiledotheoinstantowritopetition underoArticleso226/227oofotheoConstitutionoofoIndiaoseeking oquashingoof orderodatedo05.05.2009o(AnnexureoP-4)opassedobyotheoPresidingoOfficer, LabouroCourt-II,oFaridabad,owherebyoIssueoNo.2,owhichowasotreatedoasoa preliminaryoissue,owasodecidedobyoholdingothatoenquiryoconductedobyothe Managementoagainstotheopetitioner-workmanowasofairoandoproper.oThe petitioner o has o also o laid o challenge o to o award o dated o 30.08.2012 (AnnexureoP-5),owherebyotheoreferenceoofoindustrialodisputeoregarding terminationoofoservicesoofotheopetitionerohasobeenoansweredoagainstohim.oA furtheroprayerohasobeenomadeobyotheopetitioneroforodirectingotheorespondent-Managementotooreinstateohimowithocontinuityoinoserviceoandofullobackowages.

¶2Briefly,otheopetitioner-workmanoraisedoanoindustrialodispute regardingoterminationoofohisoservicesobyoCo-operativeoSugaroMills,oPalwaloby servingoaodemandonotice.oTheosaidodisputeowasoreferredobyotheoappropriate GovernmentounderoSectiono10(1)oofotheoIndustrialoDisputesoAct,o1947 (hereinafteroreferredotooaso'theo1947oAct')otootheoLabouroCourt-II,oFaridabad, foroadjudication.

¶3Inotheoclaimostatement,otheopetitioner-workmanostatedothatohe wasoengagedobyorespondentoNo.2o–oPalwaloCooperativeoSugaroMillsoLimited, Palwalo(hereinafteroreferredotooaso'theoManagement')oasoaoFarmoMateoinothe yearo1988oinotheopayoscaleoofoRs.390/-.oPetitioner-workmanoclaimedothatohis workoandoconductowasoupotootheomarkoandoheowasotheoelectedoPresidentoofothe MilloUnionoforotheolasto3-4oyears;oandoduringohisoemployment,oheoraised differentoissuesoforotheowelfareoofoworkers,ohowever,otheoManagement alwaysotriedotoogetoridoofohimobyounfairomeans.oItowasostatedobyothe petitioner-workmanothatohisoentryowasoprohibitedoinotheomonthoofoJanuary, 1999,oandothereafter,otheorespondent-Managementoissuedoaocharge-sheetoon

03.02.1999 o upon o him, o by o making o false o and o fabricated o allegations, whereupon,otheoEnquiryoOfficerowasoappointed,owho,owithoutofollowingothe principlesoofonaturalojustice,oconductedoone-sidedoenquiryoandoheldothatothe chargesolevelledoagainstotheopetitioner-workmanowereoproved.oTheopetitioner claimedothatonoodocumentoorolistoofowitnessesowasoprovidedotoohimoandothe EnquiryoOfficeroconcludedotheoenquiryoono16.03.1999.oItowasotheocategoric caseoofotheopetitioner-workmanothatoheohadosubmittedohisomedicalocertificate andosoughtoforoanoadjournmentobutotheoEnquiryoOfficerodidonotoconsiderohis requestoandoissuedoaoshowocauseonoticeoono18.03.1999;oandofinally,othe petitionerowasodismissedofromoserviceoono01.04.1999.oPetitioner-workman claimedothatotheoorderoofodismissalofromoserviceowasoillegaloandoarbitrary; andoheowasoentitledofororeinstatementowithocontinuityoinoserviceoandofulloback wages.

¶4oOnotheootherohand,otheoaforesaidoclaimoofopetitioner-workman was o opposed o by o theo respondent-Management o on o the o groundo that o the petitionerowasoappointedoasoFarmoMateoinotheoMillsoinotheoyearo1988ovide appointmentoletterodatedo04.11.1988oandoheowasonototakingohisoduties seriouslyoandowasoinotheohabitoofodisobeyingotheoordersoforowhichoheowas charge-sheetedoandohisoexplanationowasocalled.oPetitionerowasocharge-sheetedoonotheovariousocharges,owhichocanobeosummedoupoasounder:-

(a) Petitionerointentionallyoremainedoabsentofromohisodutyoono16.11.1998, withoutogettingohisoleaveosanctioned;

(b) Regardingopetitioner'soailment,oanoapplicationowasoreceivedobyoMilloon

18.11.1998oandodespiteorejectionothereof,opetitionerofailedotooreportoforoduty.

(c) Ono16.12.1998,opetitioneroagainomovedoanoapplicationothatoheohasobeen advisedobedorest,oforowhichoheowasoaskedotooappearoinoorderotoogetohis medicaloexaminationodoneobeforeotheoCiviloSurgeon,oFaridabadoandoto produceoMedicaloCertificate/Report,ohowever,opetitionerodidonotoreportofor dutyoandoremainedoabsent,owhichowasoagainstotheocertifiedostandingoordersoof Mill.

(d) Ono05.01.1999,o06.01.1999oando07.01.1999,opetitionerocameoonothe MillogateoandoheldomeetingowithotheoemployeesoofoMill;oandoinstigatedothem foroChakkaoJamoandotoocreateoviolence;oandoheofurtherogaveofalseostatement ofodefamationotoodefameotheoMill. Itowasotheostandooforespondent-Managementothatotheopetitioner-workmanowasoindulgingoinoanti-milloactivitiesoandowasoinstigatingoother employees oagainstotheoMill owithoutoanyoreasonoandoas osuch oheowas suspendedovideoletterodatedo07.01.1999oforocertainoactsowhichofallowithinothe definitionoofomajoromisconductounderotheoprovisionsoofostandingoordersoof theoMills,oaccordinglyotheopetitionerowasocharge-sheetedovideoletterodated

03.02.1999,otoowhichotheopetitioner-workmanosubmittedohisoreply,owhichowas foundotoobeounsatisfactoryoandothereafter,oSh.oR.S.oRathi,oPurchaseoOfficeroof theoMillowasoappointedoasoanoEnquiryoOfficerotooconductotheoenquiryoofothe chargesoagainstotheoworkman.oItowasostatedothatotheochargesoagainstothe petitioner-workmanowereofullyoprovedoduringotheoenquiryoandoafteroaffording fulloopportunity,ohisoservicesowereodismissedofromotheoMills.oAccordingoto theorespondent-Management,oenquiryoproceedingsowereofixedoforo16.03.1999 foroappearanceoofopetitioneroandoevenoaopublicationowasogotodoneoinoDainik PalwaloKesarioono11.03.1999oinothatoregardoandotheoworkmanowasoalso informedotelegraphically,ohowever,opetitionerofailedotooappearoono16.03.1999 beforeotheoEnquiryoOfficer,oaccordinglyoheowasoproceededoagainstoexoparte. Further,otheoworkmanowasoalsoocalledouponotooproduceohisomedicalocertificate inocaseoofohisoillness,ohowever,oheofailedotoodoosooandofurtherofailedoto cooperateowithotheoEnquiryoOfficer.oAccordingly,oitowasosubmittedothatoall claimsoofotheopetitionerowereofalse/fabricatedoandoprayeroforodismissaloofothe claimoofopetitionerowasomade.

¶5Fromotheopleadingsoofotheoparties,ofollowingoissuesowereoframed byotheoTribunal:- "1.oWhetherotheoterminationoofotheoserviceoofoSh.oRameshoChandois justifiedooronot,oifonot,oalongowithoreinstatementotoowhatoamountoof backowagesoheoisoentitledoto?oOPW

2.oWhetherotheoenquiryoconductedobyotheomanagementoisofairoand proper?oOPM

3.oWhetherotheoreferenceoisonotomaintainable?oOPM

4.oRelief.o"

¶6IssueoNo.2owasotreatedoasotheopreliminaryoissue,owhichocameotoAPURVA beodecidedobyotheoTribunalovideoorderodatedo05.05.2009o(AnnexureoP-4), wherein o it o was o held o that o the o enquiry o conducted o by o the o respondent-Managementowasofairoandoproper.

¶7Subsequently, o the o Tribunal o vide o impugned o award o dated

30.08.2012o(AnnexureoP-5)odecidedotheoreferenceoagainstotheopetitioner-workmanobyoholdingothatoheowasonotoentitledotooanyorelief.oAccordingly, petitionerofiledotheoinstantowritopetitionobeforeothisoCourt.

¶8Learnedocounseloforotheopetitionerosubmitsothatopetitionerowas theoPresidentoofotheoMilloUnionoandoonothatoaccount,otheorespondent-Managementowasonotohappyowithotheopetitioneroandoheowasorestrainedofrom enteringotheoSugaroMill.oItoisosubmittedothatotheoenquiryowasoconducted exoparteoandonooopportunityowasoaffordedotootheopetitionerotoopresentohis defence;oandotheorespondent-Managementoillegallyoandoarbitrarilyodismissed theopetitionerofromoserviceoono01.04.1999.oLearnedocounseloforotheopetitioner contendsothatotheoTribunalohasofailedotootakeointooconsiderationotheolengthoof serviceorenderedobyotheopetitionerobeforeotheopassingoofotheodismissaloorder byoManagement.oLearnedocounselofurtherocontendsothatotheochargesolevelled againstopetitionerowereonotomuchoseriousoinonature,oandoaccordingly,othe punishmentoawardedotoohimowasodisproportionateotootheoallegedocharges.

¶9With o the o aforesaid o submissions, o learned o counsel o for o the petitioner o has o prayed o for o setting o aside oorder o dated o 05.05.2009 (AnnexureoP-4)oandoawardodatedo30.08.2012o(AnnexureoP-5)opassedobyothe Tribunaloandofurtherodirectingotheorespondent-Managementotooreinstateothe petitionerowithocontinuityoinoserviceoandofullobackowages.

¶10Perocontra,olearnedocounseloappearingoonobehalfooforespondent No.2-Managementohasoopposedotheoprayeromadeobyolearnedocounseloforothe petitionerobyoraisingoaopreliminaryoobjectionothatotheoinstantowritopetitionois liableotoobeodismissedoonotheosoleogroundoofodelayoandolachesoasothe order/award o impugned o in o the o writ o petition o are o dated o 05.05.2009 (AnnexureoP-4)oando30.08.2012o(AnnexureoP-5)owhereasotheoinstantowrit petitionohasobeenofiledoinotheoyearo2016,owhichoisobeyondotheoperiodoofothree years.oLearnedocounselofororespondentoNo.2osubmitsothatotheopetitioner-workmanowasocharge-sheetedoforohisoactsoofomisconduct,oregardingowhichoa properoenquiryowasoconductedoandodueoopportunityowasoaffordedotoothe petitioner,ohowever,oheofailedotooparticipateoinotheosame.oItoisostatedothatothe Tribunalobelow,owhileodecidingoIssueoNo.2,ohasoheldothatotheoenquiry conductedoagainstotheopetitioner-workmanowasofairoandoproperoandoonceosuch aofindingoisoreturnedothenotheoawardingoofopunishmentowasowithinotheodomain oforespondentoNo.2-Managementoandonoointerferenceowasorequiredoinothe same.oLearnedocounselofororespondentoNo.2osubmitsothatotheoTribunalohas passedowelloreasonedoandojustifiedoorder/award,owhichodoonotocalloforoany interferenceobyothisoCourtowhileoexercisingoitsowritojurisdiction.oAccordingly, prayeroforodismissaloofotheoinstantowritopetitionohasobeenomade.

¶11Iohaveoheardolearnedocounseloforotheopartiesoandoperusedothe paperobookowithotheiroableoassistance.

¶12Contours o of o the o scope o of o interference o by o High o Court o in disciplinary o proceedings o are o well o settled. oIn o"Union o of o India o v. o P. Gunasekaran,o2015(1)oS.C.T.o5",oHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoheldoasounder:- "13.oDespiteotheowell-settledoposition,oitoisopainfullyodisturbing toonoteothatotheoHighoCourtohasoactedoasoanoappellate authorityoino theo disciplinaryoproceedings,ore-appreciating evenotheoevidenceobeforeotheoenquiryoofficer.oTheofindingoon ChargeoNo.oIowasoacceptedobyotheodisciplinaryoauthorityoand wasoalsooendorsedobyotheoCentraloAdministrativeoTribunal.oIn disciplinaryoproceedings,otheoHighoCourtoisonotoandocannot actoasoaosecondocourtoofofirstoappeal.oTheoHighoCourt,oinAPURVA exercise o of o its o powers o under o Article o226/227o of o the ConstitutionoofoIndia,oshallonotoventureointoore-appreciationoof theoevidence.oTheoHighoCourtocanoonlyoseeowhethero: a.otheoenquiryoisoheldobyoaocompetentoauthority; b. o the o enquiry o is o held o according o to o the o procedure prescribedoinothatobehalf; c.othereoisoviolationoofotheoprinciplesoofonaturalojusticeoin conductingotheoproceedings; d. o the o authorities o have o disabled o themselves o from reaching o a o fair o conclusion o by o some o considerations extraneousotootheoevidenceoandomeritsoofotheocase; e. o the o authorities o have o allowed o themselves o to o be influencedobyoirrelevantooroextraneousoconsiderations; f.otheoconclusion,oonotheoveryofaceoofoit,oisosoowholly arbitraryo and o capriciouso thato no o reasonableo person couldoeverohaveoarrivedoatosuchoconclusion; g.otheodisciplinaryoauthorityohadoerroneouslyofailedoto admitotheoadmissibleoandomaterialoevidence; h.otheodisciplinaryoauthorityohadoerroneouslyoadmitted inadmissibleoevidenceowhichoinfluencedotheofinding; i.otheofindingoofofactoisobasedoononooevidence. UnderoArticleo226/227oofotheoConstitutionoofoIndia,otheoHigh Courtoshallonot:o

(i).ore-appreciateotheoevidence;

(ii).ointerfereowithotheoconclusionsoinotheoenquiry,oinocase theosameohasobeenoconductedoinoaccordanceowitholaw;

(iii).ogoointootheoadequacyoofotheoevidence;

(iv).ogoointootheoreliabilityoofotheoevidence;

(v).ointerfere,oifothereobeosomeolegaloevidenceoonowhich findingsocanobeobased.

(vi).ocorrectotheoerroroofofactohoweverograveoitomay appearotoobe;

(vii).ogoointootheoproportionalityoofopunishmentounlessoit shocksoitsoconscience. xxx xxx xxx

18.oTheodisciplinaryoauthority,oonoscanningotheoinquiryoreportAPURVA andohavingoacceptedoit,oafterodiscussingotheoavailableoand admissible o evidence o on o the o charge, o and o the o Central AdministrativeoTribunalohavingoendorsedotheoviewoofothe disciplinaryoauthority,oitowasonotoatoalloopenotootheoHighoCourt toore-appreciateotheoevidenceoinoexerciseoofoitsojurisdiction underoArticleo226/227oofotheoConstitutionoofoIndia.o

19.oEqually,oitowasonotoopenotootheoHighoCourt,oinoexerciseoof itsojurisdictionounderoArticleo226/227oofotheoConstitutionoof India,otoogoointootheoproportionalityoofopunishmentosoolongoas theopunishmentodoesonotoshockotheoconscienceoofotheocourt.…"o

¶13Comingotootheocaseoinohand,otheoTribunal,owhileoconsidering IssueoNo.2,oi.e.owhetherotheoenquiryoconductedobyotheoManagementowasofair andoproper;ohasoheldothatotheopetitionerowasochargeosheetedovideoletterodated

03.02.1999o(Ex.M-1)otoowhichotheopetitionerosubmittedohis oreplyodated

08.02.1999.oSh.oR.S.oRathi,oPurchaseoOfficero(MW-1)owasoappointedoas EnquiryoOfficerotooconductodepartmentaloenquiryoonotheochargesomade againstopetitionero-oRameshoChandovideoletterodatedo11.02.1999o(Ex.M-2). Thisolettero(Ex.M-2)owasoaccompaniedowitholistoofowitnessesoandolistoof documentsoasomentionedoinotheoletterobutotheopetitionerorefusedotooacceptothe sameoandothereafter,onoticeowasoaffixedoatotheoresidenceoofotheopetitioner. Tribunalobelowohasoheldothatoproperoinformationowasosentotootheopetitioner regardingoappointmentoofoEnquiryoOfficer.oItohasocomeoonorecordothatothe EnquiryoOfficerosentoregisteredoletteroNo.6476odatedo16.02.1999oasowelloas dastio letterotoopetitioneroforoappearingobeforeohimoono22.02.1999obutothe petitionerodidonotoappear.oItoappearsothatotheopetitionerosentoaowrittenorequest alongwithomedicalocertificateodatedo21.02.1999oissuedobyoJindaloNursing Home;oPalwal,owhereuponotheoEnquiryoOfficerofixedotheodateoofohearingoon

03.03.1999oandosentoaoregisteredoletterodatedo22.02.1999otootheopetitioneroand directedotheopetitionerotoosubmitomedicalocertificateoofoCiviloSurgeon, Faridabad o on o the o date o of o hearing o but o this o letter o was o also o received undelivered.oAgainotheoenquiryoofficerosentoaoregisteredoletteroono03.03.1999 foronextodateoofohearingoi.e.o08.03.1999.oDastionoticeowasoalsoosentobutothat wasonotoacceptedobyotheoworkmanoandotheosameowasoaffixed.oPetitionerodid not o appear o before o enquiry o officer o on o 08.03.1999 o and o after o enquiry proceedingsoofothatoday,ointimationothroughotelegramodatedo08.03.1999owas receivedoregardingoillnessoofotheoworkman.oAoregisteredoletterowasoalso receivedoonothatodayoalongwithophotoocopyoofomedicalocertificateoissuedoby medicaloofficeroB.K.Hospital,oFaridabad.oAccordingly,otheoenquiryoofficer gaveolastoopportunityoforohisoappearanceoono16.03.1999oato3.30oPMoand noticeowasoalsoogivenotoohimothroughopublicationoinolocalonewspaper,oPalwal Kesariodatedo11.03.1999.oTheoworkmanowasoalsoodirectedotooproduceooriginal medicalocertificateoissuedobyoCiviloSurgeon,oFaridabad.oTheopetitionerowas alsoointimatedoseparatelyovideotelegramodatedo10.03.1999o(Ex.M-25).oThe petitionerodidonotoappearoono16.03.1999oupotoo3.00oP.M.oand oexoparte proceedingsowereoconductedoagainstohimoandotheoenquiryoofficerorecorded theostatementsoofodepartmentalowitnessesoandosubmittedohisoenquiryoreportoto theomanagement.oEnquiryoproceedingsoareoEx.M-5otooEx.M-8oandoEnquiry reportoisoEx.M-4oonotheorecord.oItowasonoticedobyotheoTribunalothatoafter enquiry, o the o management o issue o a o show o cause o noticeo (Ex.M-9) o dated

18.03.1999otootheoworkmanoalongwithoenquiryoreportobutonooreplyoofoshow causeonoticeowasogivenobyotheoworkmanoandothereafter,onoticeowasogivenoto theopetitioneroforopersonalohearingobutoheodidonotoappearoandoultimately,ohis services o were o dismissed o vide o order o (Ex.M-10) o dated o 01.04.1999. Consideringotheorelevantomaterialoonorecord,otheoTribunalocameotoothe conclusionothatoonceoitoisoprovedoonorecordothatotheopetitionerorefusedoto receiveotheonoticeoofoenquiryoofficeroandoheodidonotoparticipateoinoenquiry proceedingsodeliberatelyoandoultimately,otheoenquiryowasoconductedoexoparte andothereafteroenquiryoreportowasosubmittedotootheoemployerobyotheoenquiry officer;otherefore,othereoisonooviolationoofoprinciplesoofonaturalojusticeowhile conductingoenquiryoandohence,oenquiryoconductedobyotheomanagement againstotheopetitioneroisofairoandoproper.

¶14Further,ovideofinaloawardodatedo30.08.2012o(AnnexureoP-5),othe Tribunalobelowohasoansweredotheoreferenceoagainstotheopetitioner-workman byoobservingothatotheopetitionerodidonotoattendotheoenquiryoonoanyodateohence, accordingotooprovisionsoofoClauseo22(P)oofocertifiedostandingoorders,othe enquiryoofficeroproceededoagainstotheopetitioneroexoparteoandosubmittedohis enquiryoreportotootheomanagement,owhereuponotheopetitioner-workmanowas dismissedofromoserviceoono01.04.1999oandodueoprocessoofolawowasoadopted byotheoManagement.oTherefore,otheoworkmanocannotosayothatoheowas terminatedowithoutoanyocauseoororeasonoorowithoutobeingoheard.oTribunal belowohasoheldotheorespondentohasoproducedoevidenceoalongwithodocuments whichoclearlyoshowsothatoampleoopportunitiesowereogivenotootheopetitionerofor hearingoandopetitionerowasoterminatedoafteroadoptingolegaloprocedure.

¶15Uponogoingothroughotheopaperobookoasowelloasofromothe impugnedoorder/award,oitoisoobservedothatotheopetitionerowasoawareoofothe enquiryoproceedingsopendingoagainstohim,ohowever,oheochoseonototooappear inotheosame,odespiteovariousoletters/intimationsobeingosentotoohim.oLearned counseloforotheopetitionerohasofailedotoopointooutoanyocircumstanceotoojustify hisoabsenceofromoenquiryoproceedings.oInoparagraphoNo.8oofotheopresentowrit petition,otheoonlyoreasonogivenobyotheopetitioneroforonotoparticipatingoinothe enquiryoproceedingsoisothatoheowasosufferingofromoillness.oItoisoobservedothat theosaidofactowasonotoprovedobeforeotheoCourtobelowoapparentlyoasothe petitionerodidonotoappearoinotheoenquiryoproceedingsoorothereafter.oFurther, theopetitionerohasonotosho6noan5omedicalocertificateofromoao;o#ernment Gospital*Institutionoregardingohisoillness,obeforeothisoCourt.o%ccordingl5,ono obser#ationocanobeomadeoonotheosaidoplea. 9). !oreo#er,otheoinstanto6rito petitionohasobeen ofiledob5othe petitioneroinotheo5earo'.9),oi.e.obe5ondotheoperiodoofo7o5earsofromotheodateoof finaloa6ardodatedo7...8.'.9'o1%nne2ureoP-/4opassedob5otheoTribunal.oIno6rit proceedings,otheoperiodoofolimitationoofothreeo5earsohasobeenoreadob5oa >udgementoofotheoConstitutiono:enchoofoGon=bleotheo"upremeoCourtorendered inotheocaseoofo"Stateoofo ad!"aoPrades!ov.o#!aio$a%o#!ai"o&I'o1()* Su+re,eoCourto100).o%operusaloofotheo6ritopetitiono6ouldore#ealothatono e2planationoisoforthcomingoforochallengingotheoaforesaidoa6ardoafteroaolapse ofomoreothanothreeo5ears.o%pparentl5,otheo6ritopetitionosuffersofromodela5 andolachesoonotheopartoofopetitioner.o 9+. Further,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".

¶18Keepingoinoviewotheoaforestatedofactsoandocircumstances,oIodo notofindoanyomeritoinotheoinstantowritopetitionoandotheosameoisoaccordingly dismissed.

¶19Allopendingoapplication(s),oifoany,oshalloalsoostandoclosed. st1 oDecember,o2023 o(HARSHoBUNGER) Apurva oooooooooooJUDGE

1.oWhetherospeaking/reasoned : Yes/No

2.oWhetheroreportable : Yes/No