Back
Next 
2005 Supreme(SC) 1801
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ruma Pal, Arijit Pasayat, B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
Hindustan Lever Ltd. - Petitioners
Versus
Hindustan Lever Employees' Union - Respondents
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 5545 of 2005
Decided On : 13-12-2005
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. H.N.Salve,Sr.Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,Sr.adv. Mr. P.K.Rele,adv., Mr. R.N.Karanjawala, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jain, adv. Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Ms.S.Gupta and Mrs Manik Karanjawala, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. K.K. Singhvi,Sr.adv., M/s. Bharat Sangal, S.Singhvi, S.Panicker, R.R. Kumar, Meena Joshi and S.Chatterji, Adv.
For the Petitioners: Mr. H.N.Salve,Sr.Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,Sr.adv. Mr. P.K.Rele,adv., Mr. R.N.Karanjawala, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jain, adv. Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Ms.S.Gupta and Mrs Manik Karanjawala, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. K.K. Singhvi,Sr.adv., M/s. Bharat Sangal, S.Singhvi, S.Panicker, R.R. Kumar, Meena Joshi and S.Chatterji, Adv.
The court will generally not entertain a special leave petition when there are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts establishing that a party has acted in contravention of a statutory provision.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 9A - Contravention of statutory provision - Concurrent findings of fact - Special leave petition - Scope of interference - Court may decline to entertain a special leave petition where there are concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner acted in contravention of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a special leave petition challenging findings related to the contravention of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The lower courts had concurrently found that the petitioner had indeed acted in contravention of the specified statutory provision.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that there were concurrent findings of fact establishing that the petitioner had acted in contravention of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Issues: Whether a special leave petition should be entertained when there are concurrent findings of fact regarding the contravention of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that it would not entertain a special leave petition in view of the concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner had acted in contravention of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Result: Special leave petition disposed of; all interim orders vacated.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
labor and employment law
-
industrial disputes
- contravention of section 9a
-
industrial disputes
-
practice and procedure
-
special leave petitions
- concurrent findings of fact
-
special leave petitions
ORDER :
Ruma Pal, J.
We do not entertain the special leave petition in view of the concurrent finding of fact that the petitioner had in fact acted in contravention of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, it will be open to the petitioner to take recourse to such other measures as may be open to the petitioner in accordance with law. The special leave petition is disposed of. All interim orders are vacated.
