Concessions made on questions of law are not binding on parties, while those on facts are, establishing the principle of jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

Civil Review No. 99 of 2022 and Civil Review No. 101 of 2022 have been filed seeking review of the order/judgment dated 02.12.2021 passed in W.P. (L) No. 4842 of 2019 and W.P. (L) No. 7252 of 2019 whereby the writ petitions have been disposed of upon a concession recorded by the counsel.

2. The order under Review is a common order in connection with four writ petitions being W.P. (L) No. 4842 of 2019, W.P. (L) No. 7058 of 2019, W.P. (L) No. 7085 of 2019 and W.P. (L) No. 7252 of 2019. By this order, two review petitions arising out of W.P. (L) No. 4842 of 2019 and W.P. (L) No. 7252 of 2019 are being disposed of.

3. So far as other two review petitions being Civil Review No. 44 of 2022 arising out of W.P. (L) No. 7085 of 2019 and Civil Review No. 100 of 2022 arising out of W.P. (L) No. 7058 of 2019 are concerned, the same have also been allowed by this court vide order dated 12.07.2024 on the ground that the learned counsel who had given concession on behalf of the workmen in W.P.(L) No. 7085 of 2019 and W.P. (L) No. 7058 of 2019 did not hold the Vakalatnama and therefore concession of the learned counsel cannot bind the workmen. Consequently, the order dated 02.12.2021 passed in W.P. (L) No. 7058 of 2019 and W.P. (L) No. 7085 of 2019 were recalled and the writ petitions were directed to be posted before appropriate Bench for fresh hearing.

4. In the present cases, the learned counsel for the workmen appearing in the two concerned writ petitions being W.P. (L) No. 4842 of 2019 and W.P. (L) No. 7252 of 2019 was holding vakalatnama on behalf of the concerned two workmen and it has to be examined as to whether the concession given by the learned counsel for the workmen is binding on the workmen or not.

Arguments of the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners (workmen) submits that the courts namely Labour Court Dhanbad cum Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad have concurrent jurisdiction to deal with the matter under section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the orders impugned in the writ petitions passed by learned labour court cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. The orders passed under section 33 ( C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act were passed on merits which have been set aside on the submissions made by the BCCL (writ petitioner in both the cases) that the orders passed under section 33 ( C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act were without jurisdiction and the learned counsel for the workmen conceded on the point of law regarding jurisdiction.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that concession in law is no concession in the eyes of law and there could only be concession on facts which could bind the party. The learned counsel has submitted that the concession was with regard to jurisdiction upon a submission made by BCCL that the Labour Court did not have the necessary jurisdiction to pass the orders under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act impugned in the writ petitions was contrary to law. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 14 SCC 77 (State of Rajasthan and Another versus Surendra Mohnot and Others) Paragraph 17.

Arguments of the respondents (BCCL)

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the submission was rightly made based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court [S.L.P. Cr. 3546 of 2008] as the identification of the workmen was to be done by the Industrial Tribunal. This is in spite of the fact that Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court have concurrent jurisdiction with regard to proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment passed in (2011) 12 SCC 658 (Vimaleshwar Nagappa Shet versus Noor Ahmed Shariff and Others) paragraph 14 and (2020) 13 SCC 188 (Om Prakash versus Suresh Kumar) para