Writ review of retrenchment findings is limited; mandatory last come first go and statutory safeguards still govern employer discretion.

Under Article 226, certiorari is supervisory and not appellate, so the High Court could not reappreciate evidence or disturb the Industrial Tribunal's findings on mala fides and the absence of a genuine reorganisation unless they were perverse or unsupported by evidence. Those findings were upheld as evidence-based. The retrenchment challenge also succeeded because the employer did not follow the mandatory retrenchment safeguards in respect of several workmen, including the principle of last come first go and the statutory requirements under Sections 25(F)(c) and 25(G). Managerial discretion over reorganisation did not dispense with compliance with these mandatory procedures.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could interfere under Article 226 with the Industrial Tribunal's findings that the retrenchment was not bona fide and that the reorganisation plea was not established. (ii) Whether the retrenchment was invalid for non-observance of the principle of last come first go and for breach of the statutory retrenchment procedure.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could interfere under Article 226 with the Industrial Tribunal's findings that the retrenchment was not bona fide and that the reorganisation plea was not established.

Analysis: Certiorari jurisdiction is supervisory and not appellate. It permits interference for jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, or patent error apparent on the face of the record, but not for mere reappreciation of evidence or substitution of conclusions on facts. Findings based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, unless shown to be wholly unsupported by evidence or perverse, are not open to correction in writ proceedings. The Tribunal was entitled to examine whether the alleged reorganisation was bona fide or merely a device to effect retrenchment, and its conclusions on mala fides and parochial considerations were supported by evidence.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's findings on bona fides and reorganisation could not be interfered with under Article 226.

Issue (ii): Whether the retrenchment was invalid for non-observance of the principle of last come first go and for breach of the statutory retrenchment procedure.

Analysis: The Tribunal found on evidence that in respect of several workmen the principle of last come first go had not been followed. It also found non-compliance with the statutory requirement under Section 25(F)(c) and with Section 25(G) in respect of some employees. While the employer retained managerial discretion as to reorganisation and the number of workmen to be retrenched, that discretion did not dispense with compliance with the mandatory retrenchment procedure applicable to the workmen concerned.

Conclusion: The retrenchment was vitiated by failure to follow the required retrenchment procedure in respect of several workmen.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the writ order quashing the Tribunal's award was set aside, and the Tribunal's award upholding the retrenchment challenge and granting reliefs was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ jurisdiction, the High Court cannot reweigh evidence or replace an industrial tribunal's factual conclusions unless they are perverse or unsupported by evidence, and an employer's managerial discretion in reorganisation remains subject to mandatory statutory retrenchment safeguards.

---