AHMEDABAD MANUFACTURING & CALICO PRINTING CO. LTD. versus WORKMEN & ANR.

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 213 · Decided: 12-03-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.D. KOSHAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

AHMEDABAD MANUFACTURING & CALICO 
PRINTING CO. LTD. 
v. 
WORKMEN & ANR. 
March 12, 1981 
[ A.D. KOSHAL AND R.B. MISRA, JJ. ] 
213 
Special leave petition allowed to be withdrawn unconditionally-Whether 
amounts to a dismissal and,..therefore, a bar to entertain a fresh petition under 
Article 226 of the Constitution on the same/acts and grounds taken in the special 
leave petition. 
The Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, on a dispute referred to it under 
section 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 took up for consideration four 
demands for basic wages and adjustment, dearness allowance, gratuity and retros: 
pectivity of the demands of the workmen. The Tribunal gave its award on 30th 
of November 1971 which was published on 20th January, 1972 in the Maharashtra 
Government Gazette. 
The appellant company, feeling aggrieved by the award, filed in the 
Supreme Court a petition for spedal leave to appeal under Article 136 of the 
Constitution. Pursuant to a notice, the respondent workmen put in appearance 
and filed a counter affidavit. After some arguments the appellant Company at 
its request was permitted to withdraw the leave petition as per the order of the 
Court dated 21st of August, 1972 which reads : "Upon hearing counsel the Court 
allowed the special leave petition to be withdrawn". Four days thereafter the 
company filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High 
Court challenging the award. The petition was virtually based on the same 
facts and grounds as were taken in the special leave petition before the Supreme 
Court. The learned single Judge who heard the petition determined the circum-
stances on the basis of the respective affidavits filed by the parties in which the 
comoany unconditionally withdrew its special leave petition and in view 
of those circumtsances equated the withdrawal of the leave petition with the 
dismissal of the same. Relying on Vasant Vithal Palse and Ors. v. The Indian 
Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. and Anr. [1970] 2 LLJ 328, a decision .of that court, the 
learned Judge dismissed the writ petition in fimine. 
A Letters Patent Appeal 
against the said order of dismissal also met the same fate. However, a petition 
under Article 133 of the Constitution for a certificate of fitness to appeal to the 
Supreme Court was accepted by the said Division Bench and a certificate was 
granted and hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. Permission to withdraw a special leave petition cannot be 
equated with an order of dismissal. If a non-speaking order of dismissal can-
not operate as res judicata for entertaining a fresh writ petition on the same 
facts and grounds taken in the special leave petition, an order permitting the with-
drawal of the writ petition for the same reason cannot so operate. [219B,222C-D) 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Workmen of Cochin Port Trust v. Board of Trustees of Cochin Port Trust 
and Anr., [1978]13 SCR 971, followed. 
Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand and Anr., [1978] 3 SCR 370; 
"f 
Hoshnak Singh v. Union of India and Ors., [1979] 3 SCR 399; Daryao and Ors. v. 
The State of U.P. and Ors., [1962] I SCR 574, discussed. 
B 
Vasant Vithal Palse and Ors, v The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. and Anr., 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
[1970] 2 LLJ 328; Management of Western India Match Co. Ltd., Madras v. 
The Industrial Tribunul, Madras and Anr. A.LR. 1958 Mad. 398, distinguished. 
2. The order of a court has to be read as it is. If the Supreme Court 
intended to dismiss the petition at the threshold. it could liave said so explicitly. 
In the absence of any indication in the order itself, it will not be proper to enter 
into the arena of conjecture and to come to a conclusion on the basis of extra-
neous evidence that the Supreme Court intended to reject the leave petition. If 
the Order of the Supreme Court is read as it is there is not the slightest doubt 
that the Supreme Court had. allowed the company to withdraw the leave petition, 
in the instant case. The approach of the High Court in having perused the 
affidavits filed by the parties to know the circumstances under which the leave 
petition was withdrawn is not correct. [217 C-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1678 of 
1973. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.7.1973 of the Bombay 
High Court in Appeal No. 142/72. 
F. S. Noriman, Y. S. Chitde, 0. C. Mathur, K. J. John, Sri 
Narain, Narayan B. Shetya and M. Mudgal fo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.