Labour law awards in India are subject to judicial review, a process that allows the higher courts to scrutinize the legality and correctness of the awards. The judicial review of labour law awards in India falls within the purview of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The High Courts have the power of original jurisdiction, which means they can directly hear cases related to labour law awards. On the other hand, the Supreme Court exercises appellate jurisdiction over labour law award cases, meaning that it reviews decisions made by the High Courts.
The Supreme court held in 1963[1] that the award of arbitration can be challenged by the way of writ petition under article 226 and that even if the arbitrator appointed under section 10A is not a Tribunal under Art. 136 in a proper case, a writ may lie against his award under Art. 226.[2]
The judicial review of labour law awards in India serves multiple purposes. It ensures that the labour tribunals function within the confines of the law, maintain fairness in their decision-making, and uphold the principles of natural justice. It acts as a check on potential errors, biases, or violations of rights that may have occurred during the proceedings before the tribunal. Moreover, the process of judicial review provides an avenue for parties to seek redressal if they believe that the labour tribunal’s award is flawed or unjust.
The grounds for judicial review of labour law awards in India include:[3]
- Jurisdictional Errors: The court may review an award if there is a jurisdictional error, such as when the tribunal exceeds its authority or acts outside the scope of its power.
- Violation of Natural Justice: If there is a breach of principles of natural justice, such as failure to provide a fair hearing or bias in decision-making, the courts may intervene and review the award.
- Errors of Law: The courts have the power to review labour law awards if there are errors in the interpretation or application of the law by the tribunal.
- Perversity or Unreasonableness: If the award is found to be perverse or unreasonable, meaning that no reasonable person would arrive at such a decision based on the evidence presented, the courts may intervene and set aside the award.
The scope of judicial review is generally limited. The courts are not empowered to reassess the evidence or substitute their findings for the labour tribunals’ findings. Instead, the focus is on examining the legality and rationality of the award based on the grounds mentioned above.
The Indian labour law system provides for a two-tier appellate process. This means that parties dissatisfied with the decision of a labour tribunal can appeal to the appropriate High Court, and subsequently, to the Supreme Court if necessary. The higher courts have the authority to review both questions of law and questions of fact, but the emphasis remains on the legal aspects of the award.
Cases where awards have been subject to judicial review:
- Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1960)[4]: In this case, the Supreme Court reviewed an award made by the Industrial Tribunal regarding wage fixation for employees. The court held that the award should be based on just and equitable principles, and it should not be arbitrary or unreasonable. This case established the principle that labour law awards should be fair and reasonable.
- Air India Limited v. Nargesh Meerza and Others (1981)[5]: The Supreme Court reviewed an award issued by the Industrial Tribunal, which held that the termination of an air hostess due to marriage was discriminatory. The court upheld the award, stating that such termination was a violation of the fundamental rights of the employee. This case set a precedent against gender-based discrimination in employment.
- Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Others (1978)[6]: The Supreme Court reviewed an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, which had directed the reinstatement of a dismissed employee. The court held that unless the tribunal’s award was patently illegal or perverse, it should be upheld. This case highlighted the limited scope of judicial interference in labour law awards.
- Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited v. Shramik Sena (1999)[7]: The Supreme Court reviewed an award of the Industrial Tribunal, which had directed the regularisation of temporary workers. The court held that regularisation could only be ordered if there was a violation of statutory provisions or principles of equality. This case clarified the conditions under which the regularisation of temporary workers could be mandated.
- Management of the ESI Hospital, Rajajinagar, Bangalore v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (2019)[8]: In this case, the Karnataka High Court reviewed an award of the Labour Court that directed the reinstatement of a dismissed employee. The court set aside the award, stating that the tribunal had not properly considered the evidence and had made errors in its findings. This case highlighted the importance of proper assessment of the evidence in labour law awards.
These cases provide a glimpse into the diverse range of issues that have been subject to judicial review by the Indian High Courts and the Supreme Court in the context of labour law awards. They showcase the significance of the judiciary in ensuring fairness, legality, and consistency in labour disputes and the interpretation and application of labour laws in India.
Hence, the concept of judicial review adds an additional layer of scrutiny to the process. It allows higher courts, such as the High Courts and the Supreme Court, to review the legality and correctness of labour law awards. Judicial review ensures that labour tribunals operate within their jurisdiction and adhere to principles of natural justice, preventing any arbitrary or unreasonable decisions.
Author – Dimpal Khotele
BBA LLB, Amity University Chhattisgarh
[1] Engineering Mazdoor Sabha v. Hind Cycles Ltd 1963 AIR 874
[2] Supra (note 7)
[3] See, Chandni Gautam, Judicial Review of Industrial Awards
[4] 1960 AIR 777
[5] 1981 AIR 1829
[6] 1978 AIR 548
[7] Appeal (civil) 1854 of 1998
[8] (2019) 5 LLJ 425 (Kar)