- D.M., ARAVALI GOLF CLUB V. CHANDER HASS
2007 (14) SCALE 1
FACTS
The plaintiff (Respondents in the appeal) were appointed as a Mali (gardner) in the service of the defendant (Appellant in the appeal). They performed their duties on a golf club run by the Haryana Tourism Corporation and earned daily wages. They were further told to perform the duties of the Tractor Driver although no such post was available in the employer’s establishment and for many years they were simply paid a gardener’s salary. Thereafter, on a recommendation made by the Head Office, the Appellants started paying them wages of tractor drivers on daily wage basis, as per rates recommended by the Deputy Commissioner. Though they continued to work for about a decade as tractor drivers, their services were regularised against the post of Mali in the year 1999 and not as tractor drivers. The Respondent filed a civil suit claiming regularisation against the posts of tractor driver as despite their representations, their grievance wasn’t addressed.
ISSUE
The issue in the current scenario is whether the court has a jurisdiction to direct the institute to create new posts.
DECISION OF THE SINGLE JUDGE IN HIGH COURT
The Single Judge affirmed the judgement issued by the First Appellate Court that held that since the defendants were taking on the work of the tractor driver, their post of a tractor driver should be sanctioned and regularised.
SEPARATION OF POWERS
The doctrine of separation of powers isn’t explicitly and in its absolute rigidity been recognized in our Constitution, but our Constitution makers have meticulously defined the powers of the three organs i.e. Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. Such organs are required to function and exercise their discretion within their own spheres as demarcated by the Constitution. The Constitution expects and trusts the organs to function and exercise the discretion as strictly prescribed in the procedure. The functioning of the democracy depends on the independent working of the organs. Legislature and Executive have mostly all the powers and Judiciary has the power to ensure that the two organs function within the Constitutional limits. Judicial review is a powerful weapon and helps in restaining any unConstitutional activity performed by the two organs. While exercise of powers by the legislature and executive is subject to judicial restraint, the only check on our own exercise of power is the self imposed discipline of judicial restraint.
JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
- This Hon'ble court observed that according to the Constitution, Legislature, Executive and Judiciary have their own spheres of operation and it wouldn’t be proper for the three organs of the state to encroach upon their respective domains otherwise the balance of the Constitution would be disrupted. The court also agreed with Mr. Montesquieu’s views wherein the Judiciary was rightly criticised for over-reach and encroachment into the domain of the other two organs.
- The court observed that when a State action is challenged, the function of the court is to examine the action in accordance with law and to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the Constitution and if not, the court must strike down such an action. However, the court must remain within its self-imposed limits. While exercising power of judicial review of an administrative action, the court is not an appellate authority. Further, the Constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of legislature or the executive.
- The court referred to the judgement V.K. Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh wherein it was observed that the judges shouldn’t proclaim that “The Judges should not proclaim that they are playing the role of law maker merely for an exhibition of judicial valour” the court also referred to the judgement Tata Cellular v. Union of India wherein it was observed that modern trend points towards judicial restraint but many courts are not following such restraints, rather they are trying to perform legislative or executive functions.
- This Hon'ble court examined that the judicial restraint is consistent with and complimentary to the balance of power of the three organs of the State. It recognizes the equality of the legislature and executive with the judiciary and also fosters such equality by limiting the inter-branch interference by the judiciary. In other words, it harbours respect for the other two branches of the State. Judicial restraint also protects the independence of the judiciary. Whenever such judges encroach upon the functions of the legislature and executive, their activities are closely monitored. The highlight of the independence judiciary is its removal from political and administrative processes. It was further seen that the judiciary is the only organ that has the power to instil limits on jurisdiction; however this was considered a great power and hence mustn’t be misused or abused.
- The court also observed that judges shouldn’t never be activists. Judicial activism is a useful adjunct to democracy such as in the School Segregation and Human Rights decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. However, such a practice should be confined only to the most exceptional circumstances i.e. when the situation forcefully demands it in the interest of the nation or the poorer and weaker Sections of society.
- Hence, it was held that if the judiciary does not exercise restraint and over- stretches its limits there is bound to be a reaction from politicians and others. The politicians will then step in and curtail the powers, or even the independence, of the judiciary (in fact the mere threat may do, as the above example demonstrates). The judiciary should, therefore, confine itself to its proper sphere, realising that in a democracy many matters and controversies are best resolved in a non-judicial setting. This court was therefore of the view that both the High Court and First Appellate Court acted beyond their jurisdiction in directing creation of posts of tractor driver to accommodate the Respondents.