Full Judgment Text
NonReportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11063 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 28379 of 2018)
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing
Company Ltd. …..Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Engineering Workers’ Association
& Ors. …..Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11067 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(C ) No. 28393 of 2018)
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing
Company Ltd. …..Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Engineering Workers’ Association
& Ors. …..Respondent(s)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2018.11.16
16:12:58 IST
Reason:
1
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1106411066 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 2838628388 of 2018)
Mazda Services Etc. …..Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing
Company Ltd. & Ors. …..Respondent(s)
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11068 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(C ) No. 28437 of 2018)
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing
Company Ltd. …..Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Engineering Workers’ Association
& Ors. …..Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
2
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the final
judgment and order dated 29.08.2018 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P.(C)
Nos.3150/2017, 3188/2017 and 3189/2017
whereby the High Court disposed of the writ
petitions filed by the appellant herein and upheld
the award dated 02.03.2017 passed by the
Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, Mumbai in
Reference (IT) No.15 of 2006.
3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in
these appeals, few facts need mention hereinbelow.
4. An industrial reference (IT) 15 of 2006 was
made by the Commissioner of Labour under Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as “the ID Act”) to the Industrial
Tribunal at the instance of the Engineering Workers’
3
Association(respondent herein). The industrial
reference reads as under:
“Company shall take into its employment the
99 workmen who are working through the
devise of the contractor M/s Mazda Services
and whose names here inter impleaded as
Complainants in Complaint (ULP) No.529 of
1995 w.e.f. 30.05.1995 and to pay them the
differences in wages and other benefits as
paid to the regular workmen of the company
and to continue to pay the same thereafter.”
5. The Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company
Ltd. (employer), Engineering Workers’ Association
(Workers’ Association), Godrej Boyce Shramik
Sangh (recognized union) and Mazda Services
(contractor) filed their respective statements in
support of their case and also adduced their
evidence. The Tribunal, by awards dated
23/24.07.2014 answered the references in favour of
the employer.
4
6. The workers’ Association felt aggrieved and
filed petitions bearing W.P.(C) Nos. 819, 820 and
821 of 2015 in the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay and questioned therein the legality and
correctness of the awards. By common order dated
11.08.2015, the High Court allowed the writ
petitions and while setting aside the awards
remanded the cases to the Industrial Tribunal for
deciding the references afresh on merits.
7. By award dated 02.03.2017, the Industrial
Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the
Workers’ Association. In answering so, the
Industrial Tribunal also directed the employer to
pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 5 lacs to each
workman. The employer felt aggrieved and filed writ
petitions (Nos.3150,3188 & 3189/2017) in the High
Court. By impugned order, the High Court upheld
5
the award of the Industrial Tribunal but quashed
the direction pertaining to payment of Rs. 5 lacs to
each workman.
8. Against this order of the High Court, the
employer and the contractor have felt aggrieved and
filed the present appeals by way of special leave in
this Court.
9. Heard Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Mr. J.P. Cama,
learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr.
Vinay Navare, learned counsel for the respondents.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are inclined to allow the appeals and while setting
aside the impugned order remand the case to the
High Court for deciding the writ petitions afresh on
merits.
6
11. The need to remand the case has been
occasioned on account of one factual error
committed by the High Court while dealing with two
submission of the appellant (employer) in Para 34 of
the impugned order. It is noticed that while dealing
with the submissions of the appellant(employer),
viz., that the reference made to the Industrial
Tribunal is improperly and presumptuously worded
and secondly, the Industrial Tribunal travelled
beyond the scope of the reference, the High Court
instead of quoting the reference, by mistake quoted
the operative portion of the award passed by the
Industrial Tribunal and treated the operative
portion of the award as reference and proceeded to
examine the submissions and rejected the same.
12. In our opinion, this being obviously an error
apparent on the face of the record of the case and
7
rightly admitted by the learned counsel appearing
for the respondents, we have no option but to set
aside the impugned order and remand the case to
the High Court for deciding the writ petitions afresh
on merits. We express no opinion on any of the
issues dealt with by the High Court in the impugned
order.
13. In our view, the mistake being apparent, the
impugned order deserves to be set aside on this
ground alone.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals
succeed and are accordingly allowed. Impugned
order is set aside. The writ petitions out of which
these appeals arise are restored to their respective
numbers for their disposal on merits in accordance
with law.
8
15. We, however, make it clear that we have not
expressed our opinion on any of the issue arising in
the case having formed an opinion to remand the
case to the High Court. The High Court will,
therefore, decide the writ petitions afresh
uninfluenced by any of our observations strictly on
merits.
16. We request the High Court to dispose of the
writ petitions, expeditiously, preferably within 6
months.
.
……...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...................................J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi,
November 16, 2018.
9