Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Special Leave Petition (civil) 15178 2000
PETITIONER:
GOURI SANKAR CHATTERJEE & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
TEXMACO LIMITED & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/12/2000
BENCH:
K.G.Balakrishna, S.R.Babu
JUDGMENT:
L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
J U D G M E N T
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN
The petitioners claimed that they had been working in
the first respondent-company since last several years as
’Budli’ workers and that they were entitled to be
regularised. This dispute between the petitioners and the
management of the first respondent-company was referred to
the Industrial Tribunal by the appropriate Government for
adjudication. The dispute referred to the Industrial
Tribunal read thus:
"Whether the demand of the Badli workmen as shown in
the annexure for regularisation of their services in the
permanent roll of the company is justified? What reliefs,
if any, are they entitled?"
The Industrial Tribunal, by its award dated 29.1.1999,
held that out of the 100 workmen, 92 workmen were entitled
to be regularised and to have all benefits and status like
regular employees. They were further held to be entitled to
have other statutory benefits also from the date of their
respective initial engagement.
The award of the Tribunal was challenged before the
High Court on the ground that the Industrial Tribunal had
committed an error of jurisdiction as it allowed the scope
of the Reference to be enlarged. But, this plea was not
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
accepted by the learned Single Judge and the writ petition
was dismissed. An application filed by the petitioners
herein under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 was allowed and it was directed that the 92 workmen
should be paid every month an amount of Rs.3, 919.46 until
conclusion of the proceedings or grant of ’permanent
workman’ status, whichever was earlier. The arrears of
wages were also directed to be cleared within a stipulated
period. The decision of the learned Single Judge was
challenged before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The Division Bench held that the Tribunal had enlarged
the scope of the Reference and thereby committed an error of
jurisdiction. It was held that the main issue was whether
’Budli’ workmen should be regularised, and for arriving at a
just conclusion, it was permissible for the Tribunal to
consider as to how the workmen had been treated and as to
whether they had been subjected to unfair labour practice or
not. However, while doing so, the Tribunal, evidently, did
not put the management of the first respondent-company on
notice. The Division Bench of the High Court was of the
opinion that had the management of the first
respondent-company been put on notice, it could have brought
on record the relevant material therefor. In that context,
reliance was placed by the High Court on the decision
reported in Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India Pvt. Ltd.
vs. Workmen 1981 (II) LLJ 218 and ultimately the Division
Bench held that the Industrial Tribunal should consider the
matter afresh in accordance with law and for that purpose,
the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal was set aside.
It was also directed that the decision should be taken
within a period of three months from the date of
communication of the order. The direction of the learned
Single Judge to extend the benefits under Section 17-B of
the Industrial Disputes Act to the petitioners was also
vacated.
We heard the learned counsel on either side at some
length. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances
of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.
Consequently, the Reference be considered by the Industrial
Tribunal afresh in accordance with law. We express no
opinion on merits.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.
No costs.