The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution while dismissing a writ petition challenging orders reinstating an employee. The judgment underscores that a writ of certiorari cannot be issued merely to reappreciate evidence or upset factual findings unless the error is patent on the face of the record. This ruling provides crucial guidance on the boundaries of writ jurisdiction in service disputes, particularly where factual determinations by quasi-judicial authorities are challenged.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from a service dispute between M/s Sanofi India Limited and its former employee, M R Chandrasekhara Prasad. The employee, appointed as a Medical Representative in 1985, tendered his resignation on 30.01.1996, which was accepted the following day. Twelve days later, he sought cancellation of his resignation, alleging it was obtained under coercion and duress. The company rejected this request, leading the employee to approach the Assistant Commissioner of Labour under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988.
Procedural History
The dispute progressed through multiple forums:
- 2000: Employee filed a claim before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle II, Guntur.
- 29.01.1998: Application for condonation of delay in filing the claim was dismissed.
- 2001: On remand, the Assistant Commissioner reinstated the employee with back wages and continuity of service.
- 30.04.2002: The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority) upheld the reinstatement order.
- 2002: The company filed the present writ petition under Article 226 challenging the orders.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the Appellate Authority and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, arguing that the findings of coercion were perverse and the delay in filing the claim was unjustified.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether the scope of judicial review under Article 226 permits a writ court to reappreciate evidence and upset factual findings recorded by quasi-judicial authorities, particularly when the findings are based on material evidence and do not suffer from patent errors of law.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that:
- The findings of the lower authorities were perverse as they ignored Ex.A6 (relieving letter) and Ex.A13 (resignation letter), which demonstrated a voluntary resignation.
- The delay of nearly one year in filing the claim was unexplained and barred by limitation under Section 48 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988.
- The lower authorities failed to appreciate that the employee’s letters (Ex.A7 and Ex.A8) were not validly communicated, as they were sent via certificate of posting without proof of delivery.
- The relieving letter (Ex.A6) was not an acceptance of resignation but merely a communication of relief from duties.
For the Respondent
The respondent argued that:
- The scope of judicial review under certiorari is narrow and does not extend to reappreciating evidence or substituting the writ court’s view for that of the quasi-judicial authority.
- The lower authorities had adequately considered the evidence and recorded findings that the resignation was coerced, supported by the employee’s immediate communications (Ex.A7 and Ex.A8) and oral testimony.
- The delay in filing the claim was properly condoned by the lower authorities, who exercised their discretion under Section 48 of the Act.
- The relieving letter (Ex.A6) was served on the same day as the resignation under pressure, and the absence of evidence regarding its delivery undermined the company’s case.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a detailed examination of the scope of certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das (2023) to reiterate the following principles:
“The first cardinal principle of law that governs the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly when it comes to the issue of a writ of certiorari is that in granting such a writ, the High Court does not exercise the powers of the Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal.”
The Court emphasized that certiorari is a high prerogative writ that can only be issued to correct:
- Errors of jurisdiction (absence, excess, or failure to exercise jurisdiction).
- Errors of law that are manifest or patent on the face of the record.
The judgment clarified that mere errors of fact or appreciation of evidence do not warrant interference under Article 226, unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The Court observed:
“A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, should not be issued on mere asking. For the issue of a writ of certiorari, the party concerned has to make out a definite case for the same and is not a matter of course. To put it pithily, certiorari shall issue to correct errors of jurisdiction, that is to say, absence, excess or failure to exercise and also when in the exercise of undoubted jurisdiction, there has been illegality. It shall also issue to correct an error in the decision or determination itself, if it is an error manifest on the face of the proceedings.”
Applying these principles to the facts, the Court found:
- The lower authorities had considered both oral and documentary evidence, including the employee’s immediate communications (Ex.A7 and Ex.A8) and the testimony of witnesses.
- The relieving letter (Ex.A6) was not conclusively proven to have been served on the employee, and the Regional Sales Manager, who allegedly delivered it, was not examined.
- The resignation letter (Ex.A13) and relieving letter (Ex.A6) were signed on the same day, supporting the employee’s claim of coercion.
- The delay in filing the claim was condoned by the lower authorities after considering the sufficient cause shown by the employee.
The Court concluded that the findings of the lower authorities were one of the possible views and did not suffer from perversity or patent errors of law. Thus, interference under Article 226 was unwarranted.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the findings of fact recorded by the lower authorities, including the determination that the resignation was coerced and the delay was properly condoned, did not warrant interference under certiorari jurisdiction. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Certiorari Jurisdiction Is Not Appellate
Practitioners must recognize that writ courts under Article 226 are not appellate forums. They cannot:
- Reappreciate evidence or substitute their own findings for those of quasi-judicial authorities.
- Interfere with factual determinations unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence.
- Upset orders merely because an alternative view is possible.
Patent Errors Must Be Demonstrated
To succeed in a writ of certiorari, petitioners must:
- Clearly establish that the impugned order suffers from a jurisdictional error or a patent error of law.
- Show that the error is self-evident and does not require lengthy or complicated reasoning.
- Avoid relying on mere disagreements with factual findings or inferences drawn by lower authorities.
Delay Condonation Discretion Is Broad
- Quasi-judicial authorities have wide discretion to condone delays under statutes like the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988.
- Writ courts will not interfere with such discretion unless it is arbitrary or perverse.
- Practitioners should focus on demonstrating procedural irregularities rather than challenging the merits of delay condonation.
Coercion Claims Require Immediate Action
- Employees alleging forced resignation must act promptly to strengthen their case.
- Immediate communications (e.g., letters, emails) to superiors or authorities can corroborate claims of coercion.
- Failure to examine key witnesses (e.g., the person who allegedly delivered a relieving letter) can weaken the employer’s case.
