Tribunal cannot exceed remand jurisdiction to delete names of eligible workmen settled in original award.

Originally, in Reference (IT) No. 62 of 1996, the Tribunal had directed the respondent-Municipality to grant permanent status to 12 workmen

The Municipality challenged this in Special Civil Application No. 2333 of 2012, where the High Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal

The High Court’s remand order specifically directed the Tribunal to modify its award only to bring it in consonance with the Full Bench decision in Amreli Municipality v. Gujarat Pradesh Municipal Employees Union, which held that Tribunals should direct "consideration" for permanency rather than granting it directly

On remand, the Tribunal modified the award but deleted the names of two employees—Rajesh Lalabhai and Hasmukhbhai Bachubhai—from the list of beneficiaries, based on a statement by another workman that they only worked occasionally

1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction upon remand by deleting the names of two employees who were part of the original successful list

2. Whether the deletion of the names of the two employees without a hearing violated the principles of natural justice

Full Bench decision in Amreli Municipality v. Gujarat Pradesh Municipal Employees Union [2004 (2) GLH 692], which established that while an Industrial Tribunal cannot directly grant permanent status upon a vacancy, it has the jurisdiction to direct the local body to consider the cases of such employees for permanency

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's power of superintendence over subordinate tribunals to correct jurisdictional errors

Principles governing the scope of remand and the doctrine of Natural Justice (Audi Alteram Partem)

The Court reasoned that the remand order by the Co-ordinate Bench was highly specific; it directed the Tribunal to modify the operative part of the award solely to align with the Amreli Municipality precedent

The High Court had explicitly clarified that other observations or conclusions in the original award were not to be interfered with

The Tribunal, however, ventured into a fresh appreciation of facts regarding the attendance of Rajesh Lalabhai and Hasmukhbhai Bachubhai based on hearsay evidence from a co-worker. The Court found that by deleting these names, the Tribunal exceeded the limited jurisdictional scope of the remand order.

The Court held that depriving the two employees of their existing legal benefits without providing them an opportunity to explain their alleged absence constituted a "grave error" and a violation of the principles of natural justice

The High Court allowed the petition and modified the impugned award dated 19.04.2012. It directed that the names of Rajesh Lalabhai and Hasmukhbhai Bachubhai be restored and added to Clause No. 2 of the operative part of the Tribunal’s award for consideration of permanency benefits. The rest of the award remained unaltered, and Rule was made absolute