Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 363
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3243 OF 2025
[arising out of SLP (C) No. 28399/2024]
GARDEN REACH SHIPBUILDERS AND
ENGINEERS LIMITED APPELLANT
VERSUS
GRSE LIMITED WORKMENS UNION & ORS. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated September
1 2
04, 2024 passed by an Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature
3 4
at Calcutta . In course of deciding an intra-court appeal filed under clause 15 of
5 6
the Letters Patent by the respondents in this appeal , their writ petition was
allowed, the order impugned in the writ petition set aside and directions were
7
issued to the appellant-Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited to
appoint 48 (forty-eight) of the 51 (fifty-one) writ petitioners on compassionate
1 impugned order
Division Bench
2
3 High Court
4 MAT 850 of 2022
5 writ petitioners
6 WPA No.13605 of 2016
7 GRSE Ltd.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
JATINDER KAUR
Date: 2025.03.18
18:30:47 IST
Reason:
2
ground.
3. Having regard to the order we propose to pass, it is not considered
necessary to delve deep into the facts giving rise to the writ petition.
4. Suffice it to note, the subject matter of the writ petition concerned refusal
to offer compassionate appointment by GRSE Ltd. to the writ petitioners. A
8
learned Single Judge of the High Court by an order dated February 21, 2022
(under challenge in the intra-court appeal) had de-listed the writ petition
awaiting a decision of this Court on the reference made to a larger bench in
9
State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari , with liberty to mention after
the reference is answered. The Single Judge had referred to the decision of a
10
bench of three-Judges in N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka . We are
inclined to observe that the said decision, at the relevant time, had settled the
issue as regards the policy that would apply in considering applications for
compassionate appointment, yet, the Single Judge refrained from proceeding
with hearing of the writ petition on the specious ground of the pending
reference. Although the Single Judge may not have been entirely right in de-
listing the writ petition on the stated ground and ought to have proceeded with
consideration of the writ petition finally, giving due regard to the law then
prevailing, rights of the parties were not determined and no judgment was
rendered if seen within the prism of clause 15 of the Letters Patent; thus, it is
debatable as to whether an intra-court appeal could have at all been
maintained before the appellate court against the order of de-listing in view of
8 Single Judge
9 (2019) 5 SCC 600
10 Civil Appeal Nos. 9280-81 of 2014, since reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617
3
11
the decision of this Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania . At
any rate, even if an intra-court appeal was maintainable against the order of de-
listing, the writ petition not having been heard finally and on it being de-listed
by the Single Judge with liberty to mention after the reference is answered by
this Court, at the highest, intervention to the limited extent of requesting the
Single Judge to decide the writ petition in accordance with law was open and
permissible. However, it has intrigued us to no end as to how the writ petition
could be heard by the Division Bench.
5. At this stage, our attention has been invited by Mr. Soumya Majumdar,
learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners to an order dated
12
March 11, 2024 passed by another Division Bench which was then seized of
the intra-court appeal. It was pointed out that before such bench, learned senior
counsel appearing for GRSE Ltd. had agreed to the suggestion of counsel for the
writ petitioners to disposal of the writ petition by the appellate court and it is
pursuant thereto that the records of the writ petition were placed before the
Division Bench which ultimately, upon a contested hearing, proceeded to pass
the impugned order finally disposing of the intra-court appeal as well as the writ
petition in favour of the writ petitioners. It is, therefore, submitted that GRSE
Ltd. having also agreed to consideration and disposal of the writ petition by the
appellate court, this Court may not take too technical a view of the matter and
decide the appeal on its merits.
6. This appeal involves a serious question as to whether judicial discipline
and propriety, in the light of Rule 26 of the Rules framed by the High Court at
11 (1981) 4 SCC 8
12 predecessor Division Bench
4
Calcutta under Article 225 of the Constitution of India in relation to applications
under Article 226 thereof and the powers of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the
13
High Court as the master of the roster, were maintained. Rule 26, to the extent
relevant, reads as follows:
*“26.
A Judge, for the reasons recorded, at the hearing or at any subsequent
stage of the proceeding may make it returnable before a Division Bench
or may while hearing the Rule, refer the same to the Division Bench for
hearing.
”*
7. The Single Judge not having referred the writ petition to a bench of two
Judges for hearing, the predecessor Division Bench was not quite correct in
accepting the suggestion of the parties and agreeing to hear the writ petition
14
without having any authorization from the Chief Justice in this behalf , and
more particularly bearing in mind the well-settled principle that ‘consent does
not confer jurisdiction’. A judicial order based on consent of the parties, which is
in the teeth of the Writ Rules and seeks to unsettle and even override the
determination made by the Chief Justice, could not have vested jurisdiction in
the appellate court to hear the pending writ petition. As a sequitur, the Division
Bench which passed the impugned order could not have assumed unto itself the
jurisdiction to decide the writ petition based on the earlier order dated March
11, 2024. The Division Bench, without feeling bound by the said order, could
and did have the jurisdiction to decline to hear the writ petition in the absence
of any determination. We presently consider it expedient to advert to this
aspect of the matter.
13 Chief Justice
14 determination, as is commonly referred to in the High Court
5
8. The cause-list of the predecessor Division Bench dated March 11, 2024
PPEAL ROM
would reveal that it had, inter alia , the determination to hear “A F
RDER ELATING TO ERVICE ROUP INCLUDING PPLICATIONS CONNECTED THERETO
O R S (G VI) A
XCLUDING
[E ...]”. We have further noticed from the cause-lists of August 16, 2024
(the date on which the writ petition, after hearing, was reserved for judgment)
and September 4, 2024 (the date when the writ petition was allowed by the
impugned order) that the Division Bench had the same determination, i.e., to
PPEAL ROM RDER ELATING TO ERVICE ROUP INCLUDING
hear, inter alia , “A F O R S (G VI)
PPLICATIONS CONNECTED THERETO XCLUDING
A [E ...]”. Moreover, as per the roster set
by the Chief Justice, determination was not given either to the predecessor
Division Bench or to the Division Bench to hear writ petitions under ‘Service
(Group VI)’ of the Classification List appended to the Writ Rules. We have also
noticed that determination to hear writ petitions relating to Group VI, as made
by the Chief Justice, was given to single benches on the relevant dates. On the
face of such determination, neither the predecessor Division Bench nor the
Division Bench of the High Court could have assumed jurisdiction to hear the
writ petition premised on the legal position that they had jurisdiction to hear
appeals from orders passed on writ petitions relating to Group VI.
15
9. In the light of the law laid down by the High Court itself in Sohan Lal
16
Baid v. State of West Bengal , as approved by a three-Judge Bench of this
17
Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand which has subsequently
been approved by a Constitution Bench in Campaign for Judicial
15 authoritatively speaking through Hon’ble P.D. Desai, CJ. (as the Chief Justice then was)
16 AIR 1990 Calcutta 168
17 (1998) 1 SCC 1
6
18
Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India , as well as Rule 26 (supra),
we hold that any order which a bench - comprising of two judges or a single
judge - may choose to make in a case that is not placed before them/him by the
Chief Justice of the High Court or in accordance with His Lordship’s directions,
such an order is without jurisdiction. In other words, an adjudication, beyond
allocation, is void and such adjudication has to be considered a nullity. It needs
no emphasis that the Chief Justice of the High Court, being the primus inter
pares , has been vested with the power and authority to set the roster, as
articulated in Sohan Lal Baid (supra), and such roster is final and binding on
all the ‘Companion Justices’ of the said court. Plainly, therefore, the order dated
March 11, 2024 and the impugned order are without jurisdiction.
10. On this limited ground, but without examining the merits of the rival
claims, the impugned order is liable to be and is, accordingly, set aside. We
order a remand, with the result that the writ petition shall stand revived on the
file of the High Court. We request the Chief Justice of the High Court to assign
the writ petition to an appropriate bench for its consideration and disposal, as
early as possible, but preferably within six months from today, considering that
the respondents have been waiting for their turn for compassionate
appointment and the appellants have their own reasons for not proceeding with
making such appointment resulting in a delayed determination.
11. We, however, record the statement of Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior
counsel appearing for GRSE Ltd. that till such time the writ petition is disposed
of by the appropriate Bench of the High Court to which it is assigned by the
Chief Justice, no appointment shall be made so as to render the writ petition
18 (2018) 1 SCC 196
7
infructuous. That would take care of the anxiety of the writ petitioners of being
non-suited, if appointments were made to defeat their rights. Hence, we refrain
from making any interim order to be operative during the pendency of the writ
petition or to extend the ad-interim order dated August 1, 2016, passed on such
writ petition.
12. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed on the aforesaid terms. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
.............................J.
[DIPANKAR DATTA]
.............................J.
[RAJESH BINDAL]
New Delhi;
February 25, 2025.
8
ITEM NO.44 COURT NO.14 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(C) No(s). 28399/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-09-2024
in MAT No. 850/2022 passed by the High Court at Calcutta]
GARDEN REACH SHIPBUILDERS AND ENGINEERS LIMITED Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
GRSE LIMITED WORKMENS UNION & ORS. Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION [TO BE TAKEN UP AT 12.00 NOON]
IA No. 276829/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/
ANNEXURES
IA No. 275183/2024 - STAY APPLICATION
Date : 25-02-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Brijender Chahar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ranjay De, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, AOR
Mr. Sandeep Bisht, Adv.
Mr. Yati Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Akash Dixit, Adv.
Ms. Swati Bansal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Swarnendu Chatterjee, AOR
Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Sujit Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Deepakshi Garg, Adv.
Ms. Harshita Rawat, Adv.
Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed
9
reportable judgment.
3. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(JATINDER KAUR) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA)
P.S. to REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
2025 INSC 363
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3243 OF 2025
[arising out of SLP (C) No. 28399/2024]
GARDEN REACH SHIPBUILDERS AND
ENGINEERS LIMITED APPELLANT
VERSUS
GRSE LIMITED WORKMENS UNION & ORS. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated September
1 2
04, 2024 passed by an Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature
3 4
at Calcutta . In course of deciding an intra-court appeal filed under clause 15 of
5 6
the Letters Patent by the respondents in this appeal , their writ petition was
allowed, the order impugned in the writ petition set aside and directions were
7
issued to the appellant-Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited to
appoint 48 (forty-eight) of the 51 (fifty-one) writ petitioners on compassionate
1 impugned order
Division Bench
2
3 High Court
4 MAT 850 of 2022
5 writ petitioners
6 WPA No.13605 of 2016
7 GRSE Ltd.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
JATINDER KAUR
Date: 2025.03.18
18:30:47 IST
Reason:
2
ground.
3. Having regard to the order we propose to pass, it is not considered
necessary to delve deep into the facts giving rise to the writ petition.
4. Suffice it to note, the subject matter of the writ petition concerned refusal
to offer compassionate appointment by GRSE Ltd. to the writ petitioners. A
8
learned Single Judge of the High Court by an order dated February 21, 2022
(under challenge in the intra-court appeal) had de-listed the writ petition
awaiting a decision of this Court on the reference made to a larger bench in
9
State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari , with liberty to mention after
the reference is answered. The Single Judge had referred to the decision of a
10
bench of three-Judges in N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka . We are
inclined to observe that the said decision, at the relevant time, had settled the
issue as regards the policy that would apply in considering applications for
compassionate appointment, yet, the Single Judge refrained from proceeding
with hearing of the writ petition on the specious ground of the pending
reference. Although the Single Judge may not have been entirely right in de-
listing the writ petition on the stated ground and ought to have proceeded with
consideration of the writ petition finally, giving due regard to the law then
prevailing, rights of the parties were not determined and no judgment was
rendered if seen within the prism of clause 15 of the Letters Patent; thus, it is
debatable as to whether an intra-court appeal could have at all been
maintained before the appellate court against the order of de-listing in view of
8 Single Judge
9 (2019) 5 SCC 600
10 Civil Appeal Nos. 9280-81 of 2014, since reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617
3
11
the decision of this Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania . At
any rate, even if an intra-court appeal was maintainable against the order of de-
listing, the writ petition not having been heard finally and on it being de-listed
by the Single Judge with liberty to mention after the reference is answered by
this Court, at the highest, intervention to the limited extent of requesting the
Single Judge to decide the writ petition in accordance with law was open and
permissible. However, it has intrigued us to no end as to how the writ petition
could be heard by the Division Bench.
5. At this stage, our attention has been invited by Mr. Soumya Majumdar,
learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners to an order dated
12
March 11, 2024 passed by another Division Bench which was then seized of
the intra-court appeal. It was pointed out that before such bench, learned senior
counsel appearing for GRSE Ltd. had agreed to the suggestion of counsel for the
writ petitioners to disposal of the writ petition by the appellate court and it is
pursuant thereto that the records of the writ petition were placed before the
Division Bench which ultimately, upon a contested hearing, proceeded to pass
the impugned order finally disposing of the intra-court appeal as well as the writ
petition in favour of the writ petitioners. It is, therefore, submitted that GRSE
Ltd. having also agreed to consideration and disposal of the writ petition by the
appellate court, this Court may not take too technical a view of the matter and
decide the appeal on its merits.
6. This appeal involves a serious question as to whether judicial discipline
and propriety, in the light of Rule 26 of the Rules framed by the High Court at
11 (1981) 4 SCC 8
12 predecessor Division Bench
4
Calcutta under Article 225 of the Constitution of India in relation to applications
under Article 226 thereof and the powers of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the
13
High Court as the master of the roster, were maintained. Rule 26, to the extent
relevant, reads as follows:
*“26.
A Judge, for the reasons recorded, at the hearing or at any subsequent
stage of the proceeding may make it returnable before a Division Bench
or may while hearing the Rule, refer the same to the Division Bench for
hearing.
”*
7. The Single Judge not having referred the writ petition to a bench of two
Judges for hearing, the predecessor Division Bench was not quite correct in
accepting the suggestion of the parties and agreeing to hear the writ petition
14
without having any authorization from the Chief Justice in this behalf , and
more particularly bearing in mind the well-settled principle that ‘consent does
not confer jurisdiction’. A judicial order based on consent of the parties, which is
in the teeth of the Writ Rules and seeks to unsettle and even override the
determination made by the Chief Justice, could not have vested jurisdiction in
the appellate court to hear the pending writ petition. As a sequitur, the Division
Bench which passed the impugned order could not have assumed unto itself the
jurisdiction to decide the writ petition based on the earlier order dated March
11, 2024. The Division Bench, without feeling bound by the said order, could
and did have the jurisdiction to decline to hear the writ petition in the absence
of any determination. We presently consider it expedient to advert to this
aspect of the matter.
13 Chief Justice
14 determination, as is commonly referred to in the High Court
5
8. The cause-list of the predecessor Division Bench dated March 11, 2024
PPEAL ROM
would reveal that it had, inter alia , the determination to hear “A F
RDER ELATING TO ERVICE ROUP INCLUDING PPLICATIONS CONNECTED THERETO
O R S (G VI) A
XCLUDING
[E ...]”. We have further noticed from the cause-lists of August 16, 2024
(the date on which the writ petition, after hearing, was reserved for judgment)
and September 4, 2024 (the date when the writ petition was allowed by the
impugned order) that the Division Bench had the same determination, i.e., to
PPEAL ROM RDER ELATING TO ERVICE ROUP INCLUDING
hear, inter alia , “A F O R S (G VI)
PPLICATIONS CONNECTED THERETO XCLUDING
A [E ...]”. Moreover, as per the roster set
by the Chief Justice, determination was not given either to the predecessor
Division Bench or to the Division Bench to hear writ petitions under ‘Service
(Group VI)’ of the Classification List appended to the Writ Rules. We have also
noticed that determination to hear writ petitions relating to Group VI, as made
by the Chief Justice, was given to single benches on the relevant dates. On the
face of such determination, neither the predecessor Division Bench nor the
Division Bench of the High Court could have assumed jurisdiction to hear the
writ petition premised on the legal position that they had jurisdiction to hear
appeals from orders passed on writ petitions relating to Group VI.
15
9. In the light of the law laid down by the High Court itself in Sohan Lal
16
Baid v. State of West Bengal , as approved by a three-Judge Bench of this
17
Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand which has subsequently
been approved by a Constitution Bench in Campaign for Judicial
15 authoritatively speaking through Hon’ble P.D. Desai, CJ. (as the Chief Justice then was)
16 AIR 1990 Calcutta 168
17 (1998) 1 SCC 1
6
18
Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India , as well as Rule 26 (supra),
we hold that any order which a bench - comprising of two judges or a single
judge - may choose to make in a case that is not placed before them/him by the
Chief Justice of the High Court or in accordance with His Lordship’s directions,
such an order is without jurisdiction. In other words, an adjudication, beyond
allocation, is void and such adjudication has to be considered a nullity. It needs
no emphasis that the Chief Justice of the High Court, being the primus inter
pares , has been vested with the power and authority to set the roster, as
articulated in Sohan Lal Baid (supra), and such roster is final and binding on
all the ‘Companion Justices’ of the said court. Plainly, therefore, the order dated
March 11, 2024 and the impugned order are without jurisdiction.
10. On this limited ground, but without examining the merits of the rival
claims, the impugned order is liable to be and is, accordingly, set aside. We
order a remand, with the result that the writ petition shall stand revived on the
file of the High Court. We request the Chief Justice of the High Court to assign
the writ petition to an appropriate bench for its consideration and disposal, as
early as possible, but preferably within six months from today, considering that
the respondents have been waiting for their turn for compassionate
appointment and the appellants have their own reasons for not proceeding with
making such appointment resulting in a delayed determination.
11. We, however, record the statement of Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior
counsel appearing for GRSE Ltd. that till such time the writ petition is disposed
of by the appropriate Bench of the High Court to which it is assigned by the
Chief Justice, no appointment shall be made so as to render the writ petition
18 (2018) 1 SCC 196
7
infructuous. That would take care of the anxiety of the writ petitioners of being
non-suited, if appointments were made to defeat their rights. Hence, we refrain
from making any interim order to be operative during the pendency of the writ
petition or to extend the ad-interim order dated August 1, 2016, passed on such
writ petition.
12. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed on the aforesaid terms. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
.............................J.
[DIPANKAR DATTA]
.............................J.
[RAJESH BINDAL]
New Delhi;
February 25, 2025.
8
ITEM NO.44 COURT NO.14 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(C) No(s). 28399/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-09-2024
in MAT No. 850/2022 passed by the High Court at Calcutta]
GARDEN REACH SHIPBUILDERS AND ENGINEERS LIMITED Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
GRSE LIMITED WORKMENS UNION & ORS. Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION [TO BE TAKEN UP AT 12.00 NOON]
IA No. 276829/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/
ANNEXURES
IA No. 275183/2024 - STAY APPLICATION
Date : 25-02-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Brijender Chahar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ranjay De, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, AOR
Mr. Sandeep Bisht, Adv.
Mr. Yati Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Akash Dixit, Adv.
Ms. Swati Bansal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Swarnendu Chatterjee, AOR
Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Sujit Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Deepakshi Garg, Adv.
Ms. Harshita Rawat, Adv.
Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed
9
reportable judgment.
3. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(JATINDER KAUR) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA)
P.S. to REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)