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

2019 Supreme(SC) 152

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.
Bundi Zila Petrol Pump Dealers Association Bundi – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Sanyojak Bundi Zila Petrol Mazdoor Sangh(B.M.S.) – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2784-2785 OF 2009
Decided On : 12-02-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant(s) : Ms.Shobha Gupta, Adv. Mr.Sourav Roy, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr.Kusum Chaudhary, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Every party to lis has right to contest case on merits subject to certain well known exceptions provided in law.

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 10(1) – Industrial Reference – Demand raised in lottery – Industrial Tribunal decided reference ex parte against appellant – Appellant/respondent did not appear despite notice served on them and they were proceeded ex parte – Since inception, appellant did not get any opportunity to contest matter because they did not have any knowledge of proceedings – Every party to lis has right to contest case on merits subject to certain well known exceptions provided in law – Substantial justice demands that having regard to controversy which is subject matter of reference both parties to lis are entitled for an opportunity to contest case on merits – Impugned order of Division Bench, order of Single Judge and award of Industrial Tribunal set aside and case remanded to Industrial Tribunal – Appellant granted opportunity to file their written statement in answer to statement filed by respondent – Parties also granted liberty to amend their respective statements, file documents, and lead oral evidence in support of their case. (Paras 9, 10 and 11)

       Facts of Case:

       Instant appeals are directed against final judgment and order dated 21.11.2005 passed by High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.449 of 1999 whereby Division Bench of High Court allowed appeal filed by the respondent herein and order dated 10.04.2007 whereby review petition filed by appellant herein was dismissed.

       Findings of Court:

       We are inclined to allow appeals, set aside impugned order and also set aside ex parte award of Industrial Tribunal and remand the case to Industrial Tribunal for deciding reference on merits in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both parties. Industrial Tribunal will decide reference within six months from date of appearance of parties in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations made by High Court in their respective orders and in this Court’s order.

       Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 21.11.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.449 of 1999 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein and the order dated 10.04.2007 whereby the review petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.

2. A few facts need mention hereinbelow in brief to appreciate the controversy involved in these appeals.

3. On 26.07.1989, the State Government made a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal, Kota for deciding the following disputes which read as under:

Whether the demands raised in the demand letters by the Secretary, Zila Petrol Pump Mazdoor Sangh before the Manager, Maheshwari Automobiles Corporation, District Bundi, are just and valid? If yes, to what reliefs the workmen are entitled to?
DEMANDS
1. The difference between the amount which has been declared by the Government and the actual amount which has been paid by the Management, which has not been paid so far, be treated as deferred wages and paid to the workmen in the form of exgratia payment and this difference should be more than 20% of the salaries being received by the workmen;
2. All workmen should be given 15 days casual leaves in a year.
3. 11 holidays be given every year for National Holidays and other festivals. Three times payment be paid to the workmen for work taken from them in the year 1986 on such holidays;
4. Workmen should be designated/defined accordingly to their nature of work, i.e., skilled, semiskilled and unskilled, so that they receive salary according to their category;
5. All the workmen be given annual salary increments;
6. All the workmen be given dearness allowance in accordance with price index;
7. All workmen be paid 10% of their pay towards rent allowance;
8. Free medicines be provided to all the workmen and prescribed medical allowance be given to them;
9. Provident Fund Scheme be prepared for the workmen and deductions be made accordingly;
10. Education Fee be given to workmen for studies of their children;
11. At least two cotton uniforms every year and one woolen uniform every two years be provided to all the workmen.

4. By award dated 31.07.1995 (Annexure-P2), the Industrial Tribunal, Kota answered the reference on merits in respondent's favour. It is, however, not in dispute that the Industrial Tribunal decided the reference ex parte against the appellant. In Para 4 of the award, the Tribunal noted that the appellant(respondent therein) did not appear despite notice served on them and hence they are proceeded ex parte.

5. The appellant, on coming to know of the passing of the award, filed the writ petition in the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur (W.P. No. 5294/1996. By order dated 10.09.1997, the Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the award.

6. The respondent, therefore, felt aggrieved and filed writ appeal (No.449/1999) before the Division Bench of the High Court. By impugned order, the Division Bench allowed the respondent's appeal and set aside the order of the Single Judge. The impugned order was passed in appellant’s absence because none appeared for the appellant (respondent in appeal) before the Division Bench when the appeal was heard. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the review petition, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

7. Against the orders passed by the High Court in the writ appeal and the review petition, the appellant has filed the present appeals by way of special leave appeal in this Court.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case including the written submission filed on behalf of respondent, we are inclined to allow the appeals, set aside the impugned order and also set aside the ex parte award of the Industrial Tribunal and remand the




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