Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 434

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.
Chairman And Managing Director, the Fertilizers and Chemicals Tranvancore Ltd. and another – Appellants
Vs.
General Secretary Fact Employees Association and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3803 of 2019 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 99 of 2018) with Civil Appeal No. 3804 of 2019 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 100 of 2018)
Decided on : 11-04-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Vidur Bhatia, Advocate, Mr. Abhipsit Mishra, Advocate and Mr. Siddhartha Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Resmitha R. Chandran, Advocate, Ms. Lekha Sudhakaran, Advocate, Mr. Biju Josep, Advocate, Mr. Himinder Lal, Advocate and Mr. Raji Joseph, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Principles of res judicata contained in Section 11 of CPC, which has also application to labour/industrial proceedings.
(2) No judicial forum at instance of any party to Lis had jurisdiction to try issues again on its merits which already stood settled.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 10 – Bar of Res Judicata – Industrial reference – Issue in relation to reduction of age from 60 to 58 years including all incidental issues arising therefrom, attained finality because they were already decided on merits between parties to Lis – No judicial forum at instance of any party to Lis had jurisdiction to try these issues again on its merits – It was barred for being tried again by virtue of principles of res judicata contained in Section 11 of CPC which has also application to labour/industrial proceedings. (Paras 29 and 30)
       (B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 10 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 – Industrial reference – Bar of Res Judicata – State had no jurisdiction to make a reference(s) to Labour Court under Section 10 of ID Act to re-examine question of age reduction made by appellant(PSU) which question has already been decided by High Court – A fortiori, Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain reference(s) to adjudicate question(s) referred in reference(s) – High Court was not justified in setting aside awards of Labour Court which had rightly held that it (Labour Court) had no jurisdiction to entertain reference and nor it had jurisdiction to answer it on merits – High Court should have upheld awards of Labour Court – Impugned order set aside and awards of Labour Court restored. (Paras 31 to 34)
       Facts of Case:
       Question, which arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether High Court was justified in holding that reference made by State to Labour Court was not barred by principle of res judicata. When issue referred by State in reference was already decided by High Court between parties in writ petitions, writ appeals and lastly in SLPs by this Court in earlier round of litigation, whether State had jurisdiction to refer the same issue to Labour Court in reference under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
       Findings of Court:
       Once we hold that references made to Labour Court by State were without jurisdiction, it is not necessary to examine merits of case. Indeed, it is not legally permissible because it does not survive for consideration having once decided in earlier round of litigation upto this Court which resulted in termination of dispute against respondents/Trade Unions.
       Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. Nos. 1820 and 1824 of 2012 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeals filed by the appellants herein and affirmed the judgment dated 21.08.2012 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in W.P. Nos. 33938/2008 and 2556 of 2009.

3. These appeals involve a short point as would be clear from the facts stated infra.

4. The appellants herein are the respondents and the respondents herein (respondent Nos. 1-10) are the writ petitioners of the writ petitions, out of which these appeals arise.

5. Appellant No. 1 is a Public Sector Undertaking and engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of various kinds of fertilizers and chemicals. It has a factory at Travancore in the State of Kerala. Respondent Nos. 1 to 10 are the Trade Unions of the workers working in the manufacturing unit of appellant No. 1 at the relevant time.

6. On 23.01.1978, a Memorandum of Settlement was executed between appellant No. 1 (PSU) and respondent Nos. 1 to 10, i.e., (Trade Unions) wherein it was inter alia agreed between the parties that the existing superannuation age of 60 years will remain unchanged in respect of all the workers working in the appellant's Undertaking at Udyogamandal Division, Head Office including those who are on the rolls of the Undertaking as on the date of settlement.

7. It was also agreed that those who are recruited on and after Memorandum of Settlement in question shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years.

8. On 19.05.1998, the Central Government issued a direction to all the Public Sector Undertakings of the Central Government and directed them to increase the age of superannuation upto below board-level employees from 58 years to 60 years. This was made compulsory to all the PSUs. Appellant No. 1 accordingly ensured its compliance and made it applicable to their employees by a resolution dated 27.05.1998.

9. Since the financial condition of the appellant (PSU) was deteriorating day-by-day, it had become difficult for them to give effect to the aforesaid decision/direction. The appellant (PSU), therefore, brought this fact to the notice of the Central Government. By letters dated 02.09.1999 and 11.07.2001, the Central Government directed the appellant (PSU) to take several measures to improve their financial performance and also undertake the work of rationalization of their workers and bring it to a manageable level. This included lowering of the age of retirement of the employees. After extensive deliberations and making several efforts for reducing the financial losses, the Central Government eventually by letter dated 25.04.2003 directed the appellant (PSU) to change the retirement age of pre-1978 employees from 60 years to 58 years. In compliance with the letter dated 25.04.2003 of the Central Government, the appellant(PSU) issued an order dated 29.04.2003 to reduce the retirement age of pre-1978 employees from 60 years to 58 years.

10. This gave rise to filing of the original petitions by the respondents (Trade Unions) in the Kerala High Court (OP Nos. 14598, 14599 & 14976/2003) challenging therein the legality and correctness of the order dated 29.04.2003.

11. The Single Judge by order dated 12.08.2003 upheld the order dated 29.04.2003 and dismissed the original petitions. The Single Judge inter alia held that first, the appellant (PSU) was facing acute financial crisis and hence to improve the financial crisis some positive action was also taken for the survival of the appellant's industry; Second, the Trade Unions had agreed vide settlement dated 28.08.2001 that having regard to the emergent situation which had arisen, the employment strength was reduced by 20% to save the industry; Third, there did not appear any justifiable reason to retain the retirement age of 60 years only to pre-1978 employees; Fourth, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 434

IMPORTANT POINTS(1) Principles of res judicata contained in Section 11 of CPC, which has also application to labour/industrial proceedings.(2) No judicial forum at instance of any party to Lis had jurisdiction to try issues again on its merits which already stood settled.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Principles of res judicata contained in Section 11 of CPC, which has also application to labour/industrial proceedings.
(2) No judicial forum at instance of any party to Lis had jurisdiction to try issues again on its merits which already stood settled.