The Calcutta High Court, on September 30, held that a Court exercising writ jurisdiction could not re-appreciate evidence once Industrial Tribunal came to a conclusion.

Bench of Justices I. P. Mukerji and Biswaroop Chowdhury heard a writ petition concerning industrial dispute.

A workman who was being exploited by a company approached the labour commissioner and industrial tribunal for redressal of his dispute. 

The industrial tribunal ruled in favour of the workman and reinstated him. The company challenged the reinstatement in a writ which came to be allowed.

The instant writ appeal was preferred by the workman.

The Court observed that, "Upon considering these statements, it will be clear that the appellant workman was engaged by the writ petitioner-company to drive the vehicle belonging to the company. Although no appointment letter was issued but that cannot negate the claim of the appellant as employee of the company. It was a specific case of the appellant/workman that he was engaged in service without issuing any appointment letter. Thus, in order to ascertain as to whether the appellant was engaged in service the oral evidence and surrounding circumstances is to be considered. The writ petitioner/company is not a Government Company thus, there may not be existence of the procedure of issuance of appointment letter in all cases. Moreover, when there is allegation of non-issuance of appointment letter at the time of engagement, such allegation is to be enquired into and relevant evidence should be considered in this regard. Labour Law is enacted to mitigate the problems of unfair labour practices, thus necessary enquiries should be made when there is such allegation."

"It is not unnatural that sometimes business undertaking engages employees without issuing appointment letter and terminates without issuing termination letter and make payment without issuing pay slip. Thus, if the claim of an employee is discarded on the ground of not possessing appointment letter without considering the relevant evidence and surrounding circumstances it would not be doing justice in accordance with the letter and spirit of labour legislation," the Court noted.

The Court cited Apex Court judgment in Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. vs. Krishna Kant Pandey (2015) I CLR 560, wherein the Supreme Court did not approve of the High Court re-appreciating the evidence and drawing its own conclusion with regard to the status of the alleged workman.

The Court, henceforth, set aside the judgment of the writ court and upheld the decision of the industrial tribunal.