Writ jurisdiction cannot reopen labour findings on a new plea of illegal appointment when retrenchment breach was already proved.

In writ or supervisory jurisdiction, a High Court cannot upset a Labour Court's award by introducing a new plea of illegal initial appointment that was neither pleaded nor proved before the Labour Court, especially where the Labour Court had already found retrenchment in breach of the last come first go rule under Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court's role under Articles 226 and 227 is confined to jurisdictional error, patent illegality, perversity, or an error apparent on the record, and it cannot function as an appellate forum or reopen factual findings. On that basis, the interference with reinstatement was held unwarranted and the Labour Court's award was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could interfere with the Labour Court's award of reinstatement and substitute compensation on a ground of alleged illegality in the initial appointment, when that plea had not been pleaded or proved before the Labour Court and the Labour Court had already found violation of the retrenchment rule.

Analysis: The award of the Labour Court was based on a finding that retrenchment had been effected in breach of the rule of last come first go under Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The High Court accepted that finding, but nevertheless denied reinstatement by introducing a new ground that the initial appointment was contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the service regulations. That issue had not been raised in the pleadings before the Labour Court, no evidence was led on it, and the workman had no opportunity to meet it. In exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court was bound by the limited certiorari and supervisory standards and could not act as an appellate forum or re-open factual findings without jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or perversity. The High Court also proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the workman was a daily wager, which was contrary to the record.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in disturbing the Labour Court's award on the newly raised plea of illegal appointment; the interference with reinstatement was unwarranted and is set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The award of reinstatement was restored and the compensation order was displaced, with costs awarded to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ or supervisory jurisdiction, a High Court cannot substitute its own view for a labour adjudication by entertaining a new factual plea not pleaded or proved before the Labour Court, unless the award suffers from a jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or an error apparent on the face of the record.

---