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 the6 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 06:22:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:022359
CWP-13482-2003 (O&M) 4record. 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 was7 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 06:22:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:022359
CWP-13482-2003 (O&M) 5communicated 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 in8 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 06:22:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:022359
CWP-13482-2003 (O&M) 6Shambu 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 :::