Back
2010 (6) Supreme 839
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R. Dave, JJ.
Triveni Engineering & Indust. Ltd. — Appellant
versus
Jaswant Singh & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6523 of 2010
[Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 28588 of 2008]
Decided on : 11-8-2010
Facts of the Case :
Services of Respondent no. 1 were terminated herein in the instant case by appellant as he did not join the place where he was transferred.Respondent no. 1 made a representation before Labour Commissioner, in terms of Clause ‘W’ of Standing Orders applicable. Contention of appellant that respondent no. 1 was not a workman, and hence, Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the representation under the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and particularly in terms of Clause ‘W’ of the Standing Orders. Labour Commissioner held that the same could not be decided under Clause ‘W’ of the Standing Orders, but instead should be determined by the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal.Writ Petition thereagainst was Dismissed by Single Judge,holding that representation of respondent no. 1 under Clause ‘W’ of the Standing Orders was not maintainable and that Labour Commissioner had rightly rejected the same.Subsequently, respondent no. 1 filed a Special Appeal .Division Bench of High Court by impugned judgment and order set aside the orders of Labour Commissioner as also of Single Judge and remitted the matter back to Labour Commissioner.
2. Present Special Leave Petition has been filed against said order.
Findings of the Court :
Whether or not a person is a workman is a matter that relates primarily to facts and circumstances of the case. The same has nothing to do with the application and interpretation of Standing Orders. What needs to be examined and looked into for deciding said issue is the nature of job performed by the concerned person, duties and responsibilities vested on him and other such relevant material. Division Bench of High Court committed a mistake in determining the said issue as an ancillary to that of applicability and interpretation of the Standing Order.A perusal of the earlier Writ Petition filed by respondent no. 1 indicated that what was also challenged in the said writ petition was the order of termination passed against respondent.The order of termination also could not have been examined and scrutinized as such power and jurisdiction was not vested with the Labour Commissioner.Impugned judgment and order passed by Division Bench of High Court was set aside .Impugned Orders passed by Single Judge as also by Labour Commissioner were restored.Appeal was allowed to said extent.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. By filing the present petition the appellant herein has challenged the legality of the judgment and order dated 09.09.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowing the Special Appeal filed by Respondent No.1 herein.
3. Respondent no. 1 - Jaswant Singh claims to be a workman of M/s Gangeshwar Limited, Deoband, now known as Triveni Engineering Industries Limited, which was Respondent No. 2 before the High Court and is the appellant herein. During the course of his employment, he was transferred to Ram Kola Chini Mill but as he did not join the place where he was transferred in pursuance of the said order, his services were terminated.
4. Being aggrieved by the order of termination of his services, he filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court contending inter alia that the Standing Orders contain no provision for the transfer of a workman from one sugar factory to another, and therefore, his transfer was against the law. Consequently, he contended that his services could not have been terminated for not joining at a place of transfer. In the writ petition filed, he challenged the transfer order as also the termination order issued by the appellant herein.
5. The said writ petition was registered as Writ Petition No. 8630 of 2008. Notice of the writ petition having been served on the appellant herein, it took up a plea that the Respondent is not a workman. The said writ petition was disposed of, leaving the respondent at liberty to move a representation before the Labour Commissioner, Kanpur, U.P. in terms of Clause ‘W’ of the Standing Orders applicable. A representation in terms of the said order was filed by the respondent no. 1 herein. During the pendency of the said representation, it was contended before the Labour Commissioner by the appellant that the respondent no. 1 was not a workman, and therefore, the Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the representation under the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and particularly in terms of Clause ‘W’ of the Standing Orders. The Labour Commission disposed of the petition, concluding that the question at hand related to whether respondent no.1 was a workman under the UP Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the Labour Commissioner held that the same could not be decided under Clause ‘W’ of the Standing Orders, but instead should be determined by the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Commissioner dated 14.05.2008, the respondent no. 1 preferred a Writ Petition challenging the aforesaid conclusions. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the said writ petition by judgment and order dated 25.07.2008, holding that the representation of the respondent no. 1 under Clause ‘W’ of the Standing Orders was not maintainable and that the Labour Commissioner had rightly rejected the same.
7. Subsequently, the respondent no. 1 filed a Special Appeal before the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which was registered as Special Appeal No. 1085 of 2008. The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment and order set aside the orders of the Labour Commissioner as also of the learned Single Judge and remitted the matter back to the Labour Commissioner to decide the nature of service of the respondent no. 1 in accordance with law. The Parties were also placed at liberty to adduce necessary evidence in support of their respective contentions before the Labour Commissioner.
8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the present Special Leave Petition was filed in this Court on which notice was issued and an interim stay of the judgment and order of the High Court was passed. Pleadings having been completed, the matter was listed for final argument during the course of which we heard the counsel appearing for the parties who took us through the documents on record in support of their submissions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
