District Education Officer vs Palwinder Singh And Ors on 22 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

District Education Officer vs Palwinder Singh And Ors on 22 February, 2024

                                                              Neutral Citation No:=




IOIN-CWP-13482-2003
in CWP-13482-2003

District Education Officer and another Vs. Palwinder Singh and others
                                    -.-
Present:     Mr. Kulraj Rai, Senior DAG, Punjab,
             for the non-applicant/petitioners.

             Mr. A.K. Setia, Advocate,
             for Mr. S.K. Arya, Advocate,
             for the applicant/respondent No. 1.
                                    -.-

             This case has been listed by the Registry for the purpose of

carrying out correction of the case number mentioned in the judgement

dated 16.02.2024, passed by this Court while deciding Civil Writ Petition

No. 13482 of 2003, titled as "District Education Officer and another Vs.

Palwinder Singh and others".

             Perusal of the judgement dated 16.02.2024, reveals that case

number mentioned therein is "CWP-571-2016 (O&M)", instead of

"CWP-13482-2003 (O&M)", and same has also been uploaded on the

web-portal of this Court.

             As a matter of fact, respondent No. 1 (workman) filed an

application, under Section 151 CPC, bearing No. CM-571-CWP-2016 in

CWP-13482-2003, seeking compliance of the order dated 27.04.2006,

passed by this Court, vide which the non-applicant/petitioners were

directed to make payment of the monthly last drawn wages to the

applicant/respondent No. 1 (workman) on or before 10 th of every English

calender month till the disposal of the main case, i.e. CWP-13482-2003.

             In the said application, respondent No. 1 averred that the

petitioners have stopped the payment since October 2015. He also prayed




                               1 of 12
            ::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2024 06:22:02 :::
                                                                   Neutral Citation No:=




IOIN-CWP-13482-2003                                         -2-
in CWP-13482-2003

for fixing of an actual date of hearing in the main petition, as the same

was pending adjudication since the time of its admission.

              While hearing the said application, on the request of learned

counsel for the parties, the main petition i.e. CWP-13482-2003 was taken

up on Board on 16.02.2024 itself, and vide detailed judgement said main

petition has been finally decided.

              It seems that the error of mentioning of wrong case number

in the judgement dated 16.02.2024, has occurred due to over-sight and

inadvertent typographical mistake, as also due to the fact that on the said

date only Civil Miscellaneous Application No. CM-571-CWP-2016 in

CWP-13482-2003, was listed at Sr. No. 207 of the Ordinary Cause List.

              In view of above, the error of mentioning wrong case

number in the final judgement dated 16.02.2024, is required to be

rectified. Accordingly, it is ordered that case number mentioned in the

judgement dated 16.02.2024, be read as "CWP-13482-2003 (O&M)",

instead of "CWP-571-2016 (O&M)", where-ever it is mentioned.

              After carrying out necessary correction in the main

judgement dated 16.02.2024, the correct copy of the judgement be made

part of today's order, and the same be also uploaded on the web-portal of

this Court.

              Needless to say that already signed copy of the judgement

dated 16.02.2024, shall remain part of the paper book of CWP-13482-

2003, and at the end of the last page No. 9 thereof, a correction slip be




                                 2 of 12
              ::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2024 06:22:02 :::
                                                                 Neutral Citation No:=




IOIN-CWP-13482-2003                                       -3-
in CWP-13482-2003

affixed by the concerned Branch by mentioning therein about the fact of

correction made in the case number vide today's order.




                                                 (SANJAY VASHISTH)
                                                       JUDGE
February 22, 2024
rashmi




                               3 of 12
            ::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2024 06:22:02 :::
                                                                           Neutral Citation No:=




         Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:022359
CWP-13482-2003 (O&M)                                                  1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

207                                         CWP-13482-2003(O&M)
                                            Date of Decision: 16.02.2024


The District Education Officer, Amritsar and another
                                                          .... Petitioners

                                 Versus

Sh. Palwinder Singh and others
                                                         ....Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:    Mr. Kulraj Rai, Sr. DAG, Punjab
            for the petitoiners.

            Mr. A.K. Setia, Advocate for
            Mr. S.K. Arya, Advocate
            for respondent No.1

          *****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.(Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed by the Management i.e. (I)

the District Education Officer, Amritsar and (ii) the Principal,

Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Sultanwind, Amritsar,

District Amritsar, challenging the award dated 26.11.2002 (Annexure

P-1), whereby reference No.27 of 1998 under Section 10 (1) (c) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, has been answered in favour of respondent

No.1-Workman.

2. Pleaded case of the workman is that his whole family

was elimated by extremists during the period of terrorism in the State

of Punjab. Thereafter, he was given employment as Watchman-cum-

4 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 06:22:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=

Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:022359
CWP-13482-2003 (O&M) 2

Mali, being an extremists sufferer and was deputed in Government

Senior Secondary School, Sultanwind, Amritsar. He was under

constant threat of attack and was pressurized for resigning from the

post of Watchman-cum-Mali, thus, pleaded that under the pressure, he

submitted his resignation on 29.09.1995, which was never accepted;

nor communicated to him.

3. Further pleaded that during this period, he was attacked

twice and for the said incidents, two criminal cases were registered at

the instance of the workman i.e. on 02.12.1995 and 09.12.1995. When

the culprits were caught, the workman withdrew his resignation vide

letter dated 24.04.1996 and requested the Management that he be

allowed to join the duty. On raising the industrial dispute, petitioner-

Management produced one letter dated 08.11.1995, purporting to be a

letter of acceptance of the resignation.

4. It was further pleaded that the alleged acceptance of

resignation was never reported to the District Education Officer, even

when the Principal was directed vide letter dated 16.07.1996 to decide

the application of the workman at her own level. Again, a letter dated

30.08.1996 was moved to District Education Officer, disclosing

therein the uncommon circumstances, which compelled him to submit

his resignation.

5. Since, there was neither acceptance of the resignation,

nor the acceptance was communicated to the workman, termination of

5 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 06:22:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=

Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:022359
CWP-13482-2003 (O&M) 3

the service was prayed to be treated as illegal. Thus, he sought for his

reinstatement with conitnuity of service alongwith full back wages.

6. In the written statement filed by the Management, it was

alleged that duty was joined by the workman on 22.09.1993 and he

submitted his resignation to respondent No.2 on 29.09.1995 and same

was accepted on 31.10.1995. The said acceptance of resignation was

further conveyed to the workman vide registered letter No.395 dated

08.11.1995. Thus, after forwarding of the reference by the

Management under Section 10 (1) (C) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court narrowed down the

question, which required adjudication before it to the issue of

acceptance of resignation and its communication thereupon, prior to

the withdrawal of the resignation of the workman. Thus, undoubtedly,

the onus was upon the Management to prove by way of evidence on

record the acceptance of the resignation by the Management. The

findings recorded by learned Labour Court in the impugned award in

paragraph No.10,11, 12 and 14 are reproduced hereinbelow:

“10. The onus is on the management to prove that
the resignation Was accepted and it was
communicated to the workman. In order to prove
this fact the management examined Mwl Smt.
Kuldip Kaur, principal of the School She is not
the concerned Principal who allegedly accepted
the resignation on 31st October, 1995 and signed
letter Ex-M-3 on 8th November, 1995. Infact she
took over the charge of the principal on 20th
September, 2000 and only produced the record
and made her statement on the basis of the

6 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 06:22:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=

Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:022359
CWP-13482-2003 (O&M) 4

record. She had no personal knowledge of the
case except on the basis of the record. When this
fact was categorically denied by the workman
that his resignation was not accepted either on
31st October 1995 or 9th November, 1995 , nor
he received communication of the acceptance, it
was the duty of the manegement to examine the
relevant person as a witness who signed the
alleged order of acceptance of resignation on 31st
October 1995 and the letter Ex- M-3. Neither the
person who signed the saldorder nor any such
person has been examined in whose presence this
order was passed or thes add letter was signed
Acknowledgement of the alleged registered letter
is also not proved on the record. It could have
been authenticated proof that the acceptance was
commurd cat ed to the workman , but it is not
proved thether the ac knowledgement Was
attached with the said registered letter or not, nor
any A/D signed by the workman is proved on the
record.

11. There is another important factor which
causes Sec bubt regarding communication of the
alleged acceptance As per Ex. M-4, letter was
sent at the address New Shaheed Udham Singh
Nagar Gali No. 2, Plot No. 21 Amritsar whereas
address of the workman as mentioned on the
Service Book Ex, W- 31s “Shahid Udham Singh
Nagar Gali No. 2, Plot No. 21, Chatiwind,
Amritsar.”. Cross examination of the Workman
when he appe ar ed as WW-l reveals that
subsequently, he is residing in the area of
Sultanwind and the Management is doing all the
communications at the present address. There is
no proof on the record that the workman had even
received any communication from the
management at the address on which the alleged
order of acceptance of the resignation was

7 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 06:22:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=

Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:022359
CWP-13482-2003 (O&M) 5

communicated to the workman. 12. It is well
settled that resignation can be withdrawn before
acceptance is communicated to the emplo yee. It
is heldin General Manager , Bharat Heavy
Electricals Limited Versus K. Rajita Suryakant a
1999 Lab. I.C. 1943 that the acceptance of
resignation by itself without putting into
transmission would not bring an end to
relationship of master and servant. It was held by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Shambhu
Murari Sinha Versus Project and Development of
India Limited , 2002(2) S.C.T. 400 ,that before the
conditions of acceptance could be complied with,
the employee could withdraw from the voluntary
retirement scheme. It was held in Management of
Karnatka Road Transport Corporation Versus
M.B. Ramakrishana 2001 (3) L.L.N. 608 ,that
resignation become effective only on
communication and from the date on which
communicatin is received.

13.xxxx

14. Perusal of the service book of the
workman Ex. W-3 reveals that there is no entry in
it that the wo rkman had been relieved from duty.
Neither it is proved that the alleged acceptance of
resignation has been communicated to the
workman nor it is proved that he Was relieved
from duty in consequence of acceptance of
resignation So, he has the right to withdraw the
resignation before acceptance is made effective In
the present case, the acceptance has not been
made effective Since the workman is neither
relieved from duty nor there is an entry in the
service book regarding acceptance of resignation
or relieving him from duty nor any separate order
has been passed vide which the workman was
relieved from duty. I take support from the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

8 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 06:22:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=

Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:022359
CWP-13482-2003 (O&M) 6

Shambu Murari Sinha Versus Project and
Development of India and another -2000(3) LL.N.
513, where it is held that request of the employee
for voluntary retirement though accept ed by the
management, can be withdrawn before
acceptance is made effective by relieving the
employee from service.’

7. Once, there is a finding of fact on the basis of the

evidence brought before the Labour Court, re-examination of the

complete evidence for its reappreciation does not fall within the

domain of the Court, while exercising its power under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India.

Moreover, as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court

Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others, AIR 1964

Supreme Court 477, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226

to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and this Court

cannot act as a Court of appeal.

Relevant paragraph No.7 of the aforesaid judgment is

reproduced herebelow:

‘7. The question about the limits of the

jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of

certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently

considered by this Court and the true legal

position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A

writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting

errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts

or tribunals : these are cases where orders are

9 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 06:22:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=

Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:022359
CWP-13482-2003 (O&M) 7

passed by inferior courts or tribunals without

jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of

failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can

similarly be issued where in exercise of

jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal

acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it

decides a question without giving an opportunity

to be heard to the party affected by the order, or

where the procedure adopted in dealing with the

dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice.

There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction

to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory

jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not

entitled to act as an appellate Court. This

limitation necessarily means that findings of fact

reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as

result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be

reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An

error of law which is apparent on the face of the

record can be corrected by a writ, but not an

error of fact, however grave it may appear to be.

In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the

Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is

shown that in recording the said finding, the

Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit

admissible and material evidence, or had

erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence

which has influenced the impugned finding.

10 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 06:22:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=

Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:022359
CWP-13482-2003 (O&M) 8

Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no

evidence, that would be regarded as an error of

law which can be corrected by a writ of

certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases,

however, we must always bear in mind 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. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence

led on a point and the inference of fact to be

drawn from the said finding are within the

exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said

points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is

within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred

on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a

writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised

(vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque,

1955-1 SCR 1104: Nagendra Nath v. Commr. of

Hills Division, 1958 SCR 1240 and Kaushalya

Devi v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1960 Supreme Court

1168. ‘

8. Though, there is no answer, but this Court is surprized to

see that the Management/State Administration is challenging the

question of employment, submission of resignation and withdrawal of

resignation of a workman, who was appointed as Watchman-cum-

Mali, being an extremist sufferer, as his complete family was wiped

11 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 06:22:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=

Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:022359
CWP-13482-2003 (O&M) 9

out during the terrorism. From the impugned award, the findings of

said fact has not been disputed by the Management.

9. It is further added that during the course of hearing of the

present writ petition before this Court, learned State counsel

representing the petitioner-Management neither pointed out any

factual error in the impugned award, nor could cite any relevant law,

which may call for any interference for deviating from the findings

given by learned Labour Court. Accordingly, while maintaining the

award, the present writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of

merits.

10. Needless to say, in view of the fact that the present writ

petition stands dismissed on merits, interim stay granted vide order

dated 28.08.2003 passed by this Court, would not be of any relevance.





                                              [SANJAY VASHISTH]
February 16, 2024                                  JUDGE
rashmi
      Whether speaking/reasoned                       yes/no
      Whether reportable?                             yes/no




                                                                     Neutral Citation No:=

                                 12 of 12
               ::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2024 06:22:02 :::
 

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

VISHAL SAINI ADVOCATE