TUTICORIN PORT DEMOCRATIC STAFF UNION vs. TUTICORIN PORT TRUST

     NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2289 OF 2010 Tuticorin Port Democratic Staff Union                ….Appellant(s) VERSUS Tuticorin Port Trust            …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 05.11.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at   Madras at Chennai in Writ Appeal No.3865 of 2004 whereby the Division Bench of the High   Court   allowed   the   writ   appeal   filed   by   the respondent herein and set aside the judgment dated Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2019.04.01 17:16:11 IST Reason: 1 17.06.2004 passed the Single Judge of the High Court in W.P. No.10907 of 1998. 2. A   few   facts   need   mention   hereinbelow   for   the disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point. 3. By  impugned  order,   the   Division Bench  of  the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein   and   set   aside   the   order   dated   17.06.2004 passed by the Single Judge in W.P. No. 10907 of 1998 which was filed by the appellant herein. 4. The   appellant­Union   of   workers   filed   a   writ petition (No.10907 of 1998) against the respondent­ Tuticorin Port Trust and claimed a relief therein that the employees, who are the members of the appellant (Union)   and   working   in   the   Canteen   run   by   the Tuticorin Port Trust in their work premises are part and   parcel   of   the   Port   Trust   and,   therefore,   these employees are entitled to be absorbed and regularized in the services of the Port Trust. 2 5. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the appellant's   (Union’s)   writ   petition   and   granted   the relief claimed therein.   The Port Trust felt aggrieved and filed intra court appeal before the Division Bench in the High Court.  6. By impugned order, the Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Single Judge and dismissed   the   appellant's   writ   petition,   which   has given rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave in this Court by the Union of the workers working in the Canteen. 7. So,   the   short   question,   which   arises   for consideration   in   this   appeal,     is   whether   the   High Court was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent­Port Trust. 8. Heard Mr. Trideep Pais, learned counsel for the appellant­Union   and   Mr.   R.   Nedumaran,   learned counsel for the respondent­Trust. 3 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and   on   perusal   of   the   record   of   the   case,   we   are inclined to allow the appeal and while setting aside the orders passed by the Division Bench and also of the Single Bench, remand the case to the writ court (Single Judge)   for   deciding   the   writ   petition   filed   by   the appellant­Union afresh on merits in accordance with law. 10. In our considered opinion, the need to remand the   case   is   called   for   due   to   the   reason   that   the appellant has filed various documents in support of their appeal. The appellant filed these documents for the first time in this appeal.  11. In other words, though the writ court allowed the writ petition and the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal resulting in passing conflicting orders, but the respective Courts rendered both the decisions without examining   these   documents.     In   our   view,   these 4 documents are material for disposal of the writ petition filed by the appellant. 12. It is for this reason,  we are of the view that the matter has to be remitted to the writ court for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits.  13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds  and  is  accordingly  allowed.  The  impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the writ court   (Single   Judge)   for   deciding   Writ   Petition   No. 10907/1998 filed by the appellant afresh on merits. The   parties   are   granted   liberty   to   file   all   necessary documents in support of their case including the one filed in this appeal. 14. The   writ   court   will   then   decide   the   matter   on merits in accordance with law. Since we have formed an   opinion   to   remand   the   case   to   the   High   Court (Single Judge), we have not expressed any opinion on the   merits   of   the   controversy.   The   High   Court   will, therefore,   decide   the   matter   uninfluenced   by   any 5 observations   made   in   the   impugned   order   and   this order.            ………...................................J.         [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                          …...……..................................J.                 [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi; April 01, 2019 6