Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs Engg. Workers' Assn.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11063 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 28379 of 2018)

Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. …..Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Engineering Workers’ Association & Ors. …..Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11067 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C ) No. 28393 of 2018)

Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. …..Appellant(s)

VERSUS Engineering Workers’ Association & Ors. …..Respondent(s) Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2018.11.16 16:12:58 IST Reason:

1 WITH

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.11064­11066 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 28386­28388 of 2018)

Mazda Services Etc. …..Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. & Ors. …..Respondent(s)

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11068 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C ) No. 28437 of 2018)

Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. …..Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Engineering Workers’ Association & Ors. …..Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

2 1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the final

judgment and order dated 29.08.2018 passed by

the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P.(C)

Nos.3150/2017, 3188/2017 and 3189/2017

whereby the High Court disposed of the writ

petitions filed by the appellant herein and upheld

the award dated 02.03.2017 passed by the

Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, Mumbai in

Reference (IT) No.15 of 2006.

3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in

these appeals, few facts need mention hereinbelow.

4. An industrial reference (IT) 15 of 2006 was

made by the Commissioner of Labour under Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred to as “the ID Act”) to the Industrial

Tribunal at the instance of the Engineering Workers’

3 Association(respondent herein). The industrial

reference reads as under:

“Company shall take into its employment the 99 workmen who are working through the devise of the contractor M/s Mazda Services and whose names here inter impleaded as Complainants in Complaint (ULP) No.529 of 1995 w.e.f. 30.05.1995 and to pay them the differences in wages and other benefits as paid to the regular workmen of the company and to continue to pay the same thereafter.”

5. The Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company

Ltd. (employer), Engineering Workers’ Association

(Workers’ Association), Godrej Boyce Shramik

Sangh (recognized union) and Mazda Services

(contractor) filed their respective statements in

support of their case and also adduced their

evidence. The Tribunal, by awards dated

23/24.07.2014 answered the references in favour of

the employer.

4

6. The workers’ Association felt aggrieved and

filed petitions bearing W.P.(C) Nos. 819, 820 and

821 of 2015 in the High Court of Judicature at

Bombay and questioned therein the legality and

correctness of the awards. By common order dated

11.08.2015, the High Court allowed the writ

petitions and while setting aside the awards

remanded the cases to the Industrial Tribunal for

deciding the references afresh on merits.

7. By award dated 02.03.2017, the Industrial

Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the

Workers’ Association. In answering so, the

Industrial Tribunal also directed the employer to

pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 5 lacs to each

workman. The employer felt aggrieved and filed writ

petitions (Nos.3150,3188 & 3189/2017) in the High

Court. By impugned order, the High Court upheld

5 the award of the Industrial Tribunal but quashed

the direction pertaining to payment of Rs. 5 lacs to

each workman.

8. Against this order of the High Court, the

employer and the contractor have felt aggrieved and

filed the present appeals by way of special leave in

this Court.

9. Heard Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Mr. J.P. Cama,

learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr.

Vinay Navare, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are inclined to allow the appeals and while setting

aside the impugned order remand the case to the

High Court for deciding the writ petitions afresh on

merits.

6

11. The need to remand the case has been

occasioned on account of one factual error

committed by the High Court while dealing with two

submission of the appellant (employer) in Para 34 of

the impugned order. It is noticed that while dealing

with the submissions of the appellant(employer),

viz., that the reference made to the Industrial

Tribunal is improperly and presumptuously worded

and secondly, the Industrial Tribunal travelled

beyond the scope of the reference, the High Court

instead of quoting the reference, by mistake quoted

the operative portion of the award passed by the

Industrial Tribunal and treated the operative

portion of the award as reference and proceeded to

examine the submissions and rejected the same.

12. In our opinion, this being obviously an error

apparent on the face of the record of the case and

7 rightly admitted by the learned counsel appearing

for the respondents, we have no option but to set

aside the impugned order and remand the case to

the High Court for deciding the writ petitions afresh

on merits. We express no opinion on any of the

issues dealt with by the High Court in the impugned

order.

13. In our view, the mistake being apparent, the

impugned order deserves to be set aside on this

ground alone.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals

succeed and are accordingly allowed. Impugned

order is set aside. The writ petitions out of which

these appeals arise are restored to their respective

numbers for their disposal on merits in accordance

with law.

8

15. We, however, make it clear that we have not

expressed our opinion on any of the issue arising in

the case having formed an opinion to remand the

case to the High Court. The High Court will,

therefore, decide the writ petitions afresh

uninfluenced by any of our observations strictly on

merits.

16. We request the High Court to dispose of the

writ petitions, expeditiously, preferably within 6

months.

.

……...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

…...................................J. [INDU MALHOTRA]

New Delhi, November 16, 2018.

9