Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited vs GRSE Limited Workmens Union & Ors.

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

JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated September

04, 20241 passed by an Hon’ble Division Bench 2 of the High Court of Judicature

at Calcutta3. In course of deciding an intra-court appeal 4 filed under clause 15 of

the Letters Patent by the respondents in this appeal 5, their writ petition6 was

allowed, the order impugned in the writ petition set aside and directions were

issued to the appellant-Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited 7 to

appoint 48 (forty-eight) of the 51 (fifty-one) writ petitioners on compassionate

1 impugned order 2 Division Bench 3 High Court Signature Not Verified

4 MAT 850 of 2022 Digitally signed by JATINDER KAUR 5 writ petitioners Date: 2025.03.18 18:30:47 IST Reason: 6 WPA No.13605 of 2016 7 GRSE Ltd.

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

learned Single Judge8 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

State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari 9, with liberty to mention after

the reference is answered. The Single Judge had referred to the decision of a

bench of three-Judges in N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka 10. 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

the decision of this Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania11. 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

March 11, 2024 passed by another Division Bench 12 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

High Court13 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

without having any authorization from the Chief Justice in this behalf 14, 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

would reveal that it had, inter alia, the determination to hear “APPEAL FROM

ORDER RELATING TO SERVICE (GROUP VI) INCLUDING APPLICATIONS CONNECTED THERETO

[EXCLUDING ...]”. 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

hear, inter alia, “APPEAL FROM ORDER RELATING TO SERVICE (GROUP VI) INCLUDING

APPLICATIONS CONNECTED THERETO [EXCLUDING ...]”. 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.

9. In the light of the law laid down by the High Court itself 15 in Sohan Lal

Baid v. State of West Bengal 16, as approved by a three-Judge Bench of this

Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand17 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

Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India 18, 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)