Sanjeevamma Vs. Annyappa

.....lessee to sub-lease - possession of sub-lessee not lawful. - industrial disputes act (14 of 1947) sections 34, 18 (3) & 12(3): [a.s.bopanna,j] violation of terms of settlement -sanction to prosecute management question is with regard to payment of incentives which are relatable and linked to the production based on piece rate - details of production and incentives paid after period of settlement with reference to work provided, production made and work turned out by employees would be a matter for consideration to enter upon a subjective satisfaction - management furnishing details of production and incentives paid -no analysis of same to indicate subjective satisfaction held, authority according sanction must arrive at subjective satisfaction in respect of violation of terms of settlement. that apart, procedure adopted in sub-delegating to assistant labour commissioner upto procedure of hearing and then labour commissioner ultimately passing order according sanction would not only vitiate order, but would violate principles of natural justice. - butat the same time a restraint has been put on the appellate courtsto interfere in the discretionary order passed by the trial courtsaying that it is quite unjust, unsafe and improper on the part ofthe appellate court to interfere in the orders passed by the trialcourts unless it is shown orders passed by the trial court are inany way arbitrary, perverse or capricious, still the appellate courtshall put brake in exercise of its power of holding that merelybecause it is possible for the appellate court, on the materialmade available to form an opinion over the one formed by thetrial court, is not sufficient.order 43 rule 1(r) - appellate court: interference with orders of trial court: where material & findings arrived at contrary to pleadings or misdirection or non-consideration thereof & where orders arbitrary, perverse or capricious.no doubt appellate court can interfere with the orders of thetrial court provided it is shown that the material made availableby either of the parties to the proceedings and the findingsarrived at are contrary to the pleadings of the parties or theircomplete misdirection or non-considering any of the material. butat the same time a restraint has been put on the appellate courtsto interfere in the discretionary order passed by the trial courtsaying that it is quite unjust, unsafe and improper on the part ofthe appellate court to interfere in the orders passed by the trialcourts unless it is shown orders passed by the trial court are inany way arbitrary, perverse or capricious, still the appellate courtshall put brake in exercise of its power of holding that merelybecause it is possible for the appellate court, on the materialmade available to form an opinion over the one formed by thetrial court, is not sufficient.(b) karnataka minor mineral concession rules, 1969 - no provision authorising lessee to sub-lease - possession of sub-lessee not lawful.