National Textile Corp. Ltd. Indore vs Brijkishore

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: L.P. Bhargava.
For the Respondent: K.N. Puntambekar.

Headnote:(1) Jurisdiction – question of jurisdiction not raised before Courts below – cannot be considered in writ jurisdiction.
       (2) Constitution of India – Article 227 – jurisdiction of High Court under – is little and limited.
        Short Note
       1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for quashment of the order dated 21.9.1987 (Annexure P/7) and the common order dated 13.2.1990, passed by the Industrial Court in Appeal No. 1058/MPIR/87 and Appeal No. 1073/MPIR/87 (Annexure P/8).
       2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent was employed by the petitioners on 1.1.1974 to work as a clerk. From 12.1.1984, he worked on the post of local delivery. He filed an application before the Labour Court for classification. The Labour Court ordered that respondent No. 1 be classified as Class III employee and be paid wages accordingly from the date of the order. Against this order, the employer filed the appeal No. 1058/MPIR/87 whereas the employee filed appeal No. 1073/MPIR/87. These appeals were disposed by the common order dated 13.219.90. The appeal of the employer was dismissed whereas the appeal of the employee was allowed in part with direction to the employer to do the classification as ordered by the Labour Court with effect from 11.4.1982 instead of the date of the order i.e. 21.9.1987.
       3. Dissatisfied, the petitioners filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
       4. I have heard Shri L.P. Bhargava, learned senior counsel with Shri Oza for the petitioners and Shri K.N. Puntambekar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.
       5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent No. 3 (Labour Court) had no jurisdiction to order classification and respondent No. 2 (Industrial Court) had no jurisdiction to sustain classification and direct it to be done by 11.4.1987. He has placed reliance on M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs. Narayan Singh Rathore and Others, 1994 JLJ 648 (FB).
       6. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the payment has already been made in terms of the orders.
       7. In para 4 of the order passed by the Industrial Court, it is noted as under: –
       ^^fu;ksDrk ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd us ÁdV fd;k fd deZpkjh dks 2 – 3 – 1987 rd dk osru dk vUrj Hkh fn;k tk pqdk gSA deZpkjh ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd us bl ckor lgefr O;Dr dh o dksbZ vkifRr ugha dhA**
       8. The question of jurisdiction does not seem to have been raised before the Labour Court or the Industrial Court. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as held in Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and Others, AIR 1984 SC 38, is little and limited.
       9. I do not find any ground for correction and interference in the facts and features of the present case. So far as the aforesaid decision is concerned, the petitioners shall be at liberty to contest the question in other cases before the Labour Court or the Industrial Court, if raised by any employee. But so far as the present case is concerned, I do not deem it proper to make any interference as this question was not raised before the Courts below and the classification is already made by the petitioners as noted in para 4 of the order passed by the Industrial Court. The difference is already paid.
       10. The petition is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. Security amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioners, after the verification.

National Textile Corp. Ltd. Indore vs Brijkishore - 1997 Supreme(MP) 1084