SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 304

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
IEL Suprevisor Association Etc. Etc. - Appellants
Versus
Duncan Industries Ltd. & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 9382-9384 of 2017
Decided On : 23-02-2018

The court emphasized the importance of deciding the issue of whether the Supervisors/Deputy Superintendents would be considered as workmen or not under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in accordance with the order dated 14.09.2010.

Headnote:

Remand - Industrial Disputes Act - The court set aside the judgment of the High Court and directed it to decide the issue of whether the Supervisors/Deputy Superintendents would be considered as workmen or not, in accordance with the order dated 14.09.2010 passed by the Supreme Court.

Fact of the Case:

The High Court remitted the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication due to conflicting views of the Labour Courts on the status of Supervisors and Deputy Superintendents as workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no justification for the High Court to remit the matter again to the Labour Court and set aside the impugned judgment, directing the High Court to decide the issue finally in accordance with the order dated 14.09.2010.

Issues: The only remaining dispute was whether the Supervisors/Deputy Superintendents would be considered as workmen or not under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Ratio Decidendi: The conflicting views of the Labour Courts and the importance of the issues led the Supreme Court to direct the High Court to decide the issue finally in accordance with the order dated 14.09.2010.

Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the High Court was directed to decide the issue finally in the true spirit of the order dated 14.09.2010, based on the materials available on record.

JUDGMENT :

Kurian, J.

The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved by the Judgment dated 24.02.2016 passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 12468 of 2002 and other connected matters, by which the High Court remitted the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

2. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that this is the second time the remittance is made and going by the order dated 14.09.2010 passed by this Court, the High Court could not have made a remand. The relevant portion of the order dated 14.09.2010 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 351-355 of 2006 and other connected matters, is reproduced below :-

"In the circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the Labour Court has taken two different views in the two references made to it as regards the staut of Supervisors and Deputy Superintendents, we are of the view that the matters need to be remanded back to the High Court to enabel both the sides to argue the matter afresh and also the High Court to examine the issues that arise for determination.

We, accordingly, allow these appeals, set aside both the impugned orders and remit the matters back to the High Court for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. Keeping in view the importance of the issues that arise for consideration, we would request the Chief Justice of the High Court to direct placing the matters before a Division Bench. Since, the matters have been lingering on for a long time, we give liberty to the parties to approach the Division Bench for an early hearing and disposal. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Needless to say that all contentions available to the parties are left open to be urged before the High Court."

3. It may be seen that the order, as above, was passed in view of the conflicting stands taken by two Labour Courts on the issue as to whether the Supervisors/Deputy Superintendents would be workmen or not under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned counsel for the Management submits that in view of the intervening development after the order dated 14.09.2010 passed by this Court, whereby the Management has been taken over by the present respondent, the matter needs a fresh adjudication. We are afraid, the contention cannot be appreciated.

4. The only dispute remaining to be decided is whether the Supervisors/Deputy Superintendents would be workmen or not. There are already two conflicting views of the Labour Courts. In the above circumstances, we do not find any justification for the High Court remitting the matter again to the Labour Court on the issue. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed. The impugned Judgment is set aside. We direct the High Court to decide the issue finally in the true spirit of the order dated 14.09.2010, as explained by us above on the basis of the materials available on record. Being an old matter, we request the High Court to dispose of the writ appeals expeditiously and preferably before the Court closes for summer vacation. It will be open to the first respondent to bring the intervening developments to the notice of the High Court. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top