TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Article 226 with the Labour Court's finding that the employee was a workman and in upsetting that finding at the preliminary stage.
Analysis: In industrial adjudication, preliminary issues should not ordinarily be tried in isolation where doing so delays determination of the real dispute and encourages repeated challenges at interlocutory stages. The jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 136 is supervisory, and courts should be slow to interfere with a tribunal's interlocutory order, especially where the tribunal has examined the evidence and recorded a positive finding on the employee's main duties. The Labour Court had considered the oral and documentary material and found that the employee was mainly performing clerical work and therefore fell within the definition of workman. The High Court reappreciated facts without properly considering the evidence and treated the Labour Court's conclusion as perverse without adequate basis.
Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in interfering with the Labour Court's order, and the Labour Court's finding that the employee was a workman was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: Courts exercising supervisory jurisdiction should ordinarily avoid interfering at the preliminary stage with a labour tribunal's fact-based finding when that finding is supported by relevant evidence and concerns the main issue in dispute.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
