M/s Mitra S.P. (P) Ltd. & Anr. Versus Dhiren Kumar

M/s Mitra S.P. (P) Ltd. & Anr. Versus Dhiren Kumar

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  4863­4866 OF 2022

M/s Mitra S.P. (P) Ltd. & Anr.                …Appellant(s)

Versus

Dhiren Kumar        …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned

common judgment and order passed by the High Court in

Writ Appeal Nos. 615/2021 and 617/2017 in respective

Writ   Petition   Nos.   2955/2021   and   5271/2009,   the

Management has preferred the present appeals.  

2. The  respondent   –  workman   was  appointed  as  a  Junior

Supervisor with the company’s branch at Visakhapatnam.

1

While   he   was   working   at   Visakhapatnam,   he   was

transferred to Jharsuguda in State of Orissa vide order

dated 20.07.1997. The workman instead of joining at the

place of transfer submitted a representation to the Director

requesting for transfer to Mangalore in Karnataka State.

The same was not acceded to. Challenging the said order of

transfer, the workman filed O.S. No. 1602/1997. The Civil

Court did not grant any relief as prayed by the workman.

Thereafter, the workman was relieved by the branch office

at   Visakhapatnam   on   14.08.1997.   Though   the   said

relieving order was received by the workman, he neither

handed   over   the   charge   at   Visakhapatnam   nor   did   he

report   for   duty   at   Jharsuguda   office.   Therefore,   the

management treated him as deemed to have been relieved

w.e.f. 14.08.1997 from Visakhapatnam office. Thereafter,

the   management   issued   a   show   cause   notice   dated

24.10.1997 to comply with the directions of transfer or else

disciplinary action would be initiated against the workman.

Thereafter,   the   workman   was   placed   under   suspension.

Domestic enquiry was ordered. The enquiry proceeded exparte.   Subsequently,   the   management   dismissed   the

2

workman from service w.e.f. 15.09.1998. Aggrieved by the

dismissal   order,   the   workman   filed   I.D.   No.   219/1998

before the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide judgment

and   award   dated   23.10.2000   modified   the   order   of

dismissal with stoppage of one increment with cumulative

effect and ordered for reinstatement of the workman into

service, with a direction to the workman to join at the place

of his transfer i.e., at Jharsuguda within a period of one

month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which,

he shall not be entitled to the reinstatement. The Labour

Court   also   further   directed   that   the   management   shall

consider   the   request   of   the   workman   for   retransfer   to

Visakhapatnam or Mangalore after the workman joins at

his new station and that if the workman fails to report for

duty  at   Jharsuguda   within   one  month   he  shall   not   be

entitled   to   back   wages   or   continuity   of   service.   The

management filed W.P. No. 2955/2001 before the learned

Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court.   On   22.02.2001   while

admitting   the   writ   petition,   the   learned   Single   Judge

granted   interim   suspension   of   the   order   of   the   Labour

Court. Subsequently, learned Single Judge modified the

3

said   interim   order   granting   interim   stay   subject   to   the

condition of the management complying with Section 17­B

of the Industrial Disputes Act.

2.1 It is the case on behalf of the workman that thereafter he

reported at Jharsuguda but he was not permitted to join on

the ground that no instructions were received from the head

office. Therefore, the workman filed an application under

Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for

short “ID Act”) before the Labour Court for recovery of wages

from 01.01.1998 to 30.04.2005. The said application under

Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act came to be dismissed by the

Labour Court on the ground that the workman did not go to

Jharsuguda   to   join   duty.   Aggrieved   by   the   same,   the

workman filed W.P. No. 5271/2009. Both the writ petitions,

one, filed by the management against the judgment and

award passed by the Labour Court and another, filed by the

workman challenging the order passed by the Labour Court

dismissing   the   application   under   Section   33(C)(2)   were

heard together. Before the learned Single Judge for the first

time   the   management   raised   the   issue   with   respect   to

territorial   jurisdiction   of   the   Labour   Court.   The   learned

4

Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the

management by observing that the management shall not

be permitted to raise the issue with respect to territorial

jurisdiction for the first time before the High Court. At the

same time, without any further discussion on merits on the

order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the application

under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, the learned Single

Judge allowed Writ Petition No. 5271/2009 preferred by the

workman   and   set   aside   the   order   of   the   Labour   Court

rejecting the application under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act

– M.P. No. 43/2005 dated 16.12.2008. The learned Single

Judge observed and held that the workman is entitled for all

the benefits in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal in I.D.

No. 219 of 1998 with all consequential benefits. 

2.2 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   common

judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of

the   High   Court   in   Writ   Petition   Nos.   2955/2001   and

5271/2009, the management preferred writ appeals before

the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court.   By   the   common

impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the

High Court has dismissed the appeals as not maintainable

5

by observing and holding that the writ petitions were under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the

writ appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court

would not be maintainable. Hence, the present appeals.

        

3. We   have   heard   Mr.  Siddhartha  Dave,   learned   Senior

Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) and Mr. K.

Parameshwar, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the

respondent.

4. From the judgment and order passed by the learned Single

Judge,   it   appears   that   what   was   challenged   before   the

learned Single Judge was the order passed by the Labour

Court rejecting the application under Section 33(C)(2) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 preferred by the workman as

well as the original award passed by the  Labour Court.

Learned Single Judge passed the common judgment and

order   dismissing   the   writ   petition   preferred   by   the

Management   in   which   the   Management   challenged   the

original judgment and award passed by the Labour Court

and   allowed   the   writ   petition   preferred   by  the   workman

rejecting his Section 33(C)(2) application.

6

4.1 So far as challenge to the award passed by the Labour Court

by the Management is concerned, from the judgment and

order passed by the learned Single Judge, it appears that

there   was   only   one   submission   made   with   respect   to

territorial   jurisdiction   and   the   learned   Single   Judge

negatived the same.  Therefore, so far as the order passed

by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition

preferred by the Management against the original judgment

and award by the Labour Court is concerned, the same does

not warrant any interference.  

4.2 However, at the same time, while allowing the writ petition

preferred   by   the   workman   challenging   the   dismissal   of

application under Section 33(C)(2), from the order passed by

the   learned   Single   Judge   it   appears   that   there   is   no

discussion at all on the order passed by the Labour Court

rejecting   the   33(C)(2)   application   and   without   any

discussion and/or recording any specific findings on the

merits of the order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the

33(C)(2)   application,   the   writ   petition   preferred   by   the

workman   has   been   allowed.     The   learned   Single   Judge

ought to have considered the writ petition preferred by the

7

workman on merits and ought to have given some findings

on the order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the 33(C)

(2) application.

5. Under   the   circumstances,   the   impugned   judgment   and

order passed by the learned Single insofar as allowing the

Writ Petition No. 5271/2009 preferred by the workman is

concerned, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The

matter   is   remitted   back   to   the   learned   Single   Judge   to

decide Writ Petition No. 5271/2009 afresh in accordance

with law and on its own merits and within a period of six

months   from   today.   Civil   Appeals   arising   out   of   the

judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   in   Writ

Petition   No.   5271/2009   are   accordingly   allowed.   Civil

Appeals arising out of Writ Petition No. 2955/2001 stand

dismissed. No costs.    

The Registry is directed to communicate this order to

the Registry of the High Court forthwith.  All concerned are

directed   to   cooperate   the   learned   Single   Judge   in   early

disposal of the writ petition and within the time stipulated

hereinabove. If the High Court is of the opinion that any of

the parties is not cooperating, it will be open for the High

8

Court to proceed further with the hearing of the writ petition

ex­parte by recording reasons. 

The present appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No

costs.

………………………………….J.

[M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

AUGUST 04, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]

9