CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, ENNORE PORT TRUST (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS KAMARAJAR PORT LIMITED) versus V. MANOHARAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 2 S.C.R. 644 · Decided: 15-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 2 S.C.R.
CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR,
ENNORE PORT TRUST
(PRESENTLY KNOWN AS KAMARAJAR PORT LIMITED)
v.
V. MANOHARAN AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2114-2115 of 2018)
FEBRUARY 15, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art.226 – Writ petition under,
involving questions of facts – Maintainability of – In Chennai Port
Trust, in order to carry out loading, unloading etc. of coal and iron
ore, numbers of workers were involved – Writ petition filed by these
workers for regularization of their services – During pendency of
the writ petition, these workers formed an association – Matter
referred to arbitration– Arbitral tribunal inter alia, directed the parties
to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for settlement
of disputes – Accordingly,  Chennai Port Trust and the Association
entered into an MOU– Writ petition filed by some public spirited
persons inter alia for shifting of activity of Chennai Port Trust to
some other Port so that environmental pollution prevailing in the
locality is considerably reduced, allowed – Accordingly, activities
from Chennai Port Trust shifted to Ennore Port – In the meantime,
90 persons again claiming to be workers working on Chennai Port
Trust filed writ petition seeking regularization of their services, which
was dismissed by Single Judge – Division Bench partly allowed the
appeal and gave certain directions to Chennai Port Trust and Ennore
Port Trust (appellants) – On appeal, held: Having regard to the
nature of controversy raised by respondents and keeping in view
Clause 31 of MOU, which provided for referring the case to Arbitral
Tribunal in the event of any dispute, the writ petition filed by
respondents should not have been tried on merits by Single Judge
and instead the parties should have been left to take recourse to
the remedy provided in Clause 31 – Even otherwise, the disputes
raised in the present case are not the disputes which are capable of
being tried in writ jurisdiction and can be tried only by a Tribunal
– Parties are relegated to take recourse to the arbitration proceeding
for adjudicating the disputes – Societies Registration Act, 1860.
  [2018] 2 S.C.R. 644
                   644
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
645
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Having regard to the nature of the controversy
raised by the writ petitioners (respondents herein) and relief
sought in the writ petitions and keeping in view the clauses of
the MOU, especially Clause 31, which provides for referring the
case to the Arbitral Tribunal in the event of any dispute arising
between the parties in relation to MOU, the writ petition filed by
the respondents herein under Article 226 of the Constitution
should not have been entertained for being tried on merits by
the Single Judge and instead the parties should have been left to
take recourse to the remedy provided in Clause 31 for referring
the case to Arbitral Tribunal for its decision in accordance with
law. [Para 22][652-D-F]
1.2 A question whether a particular person is in the
employment of any establishment and whether he is entitled to
claim regularization of his services in such establishment (as in
this case Port Trust) and, if so, from which date is essentially a
question of fact. If such question is disputed by the establishment,
then it is required to be decided by a fact-finding body on the
basis of evidence adduced by such person unless the parties do
not dispute the facts. If one person is able to prove his case of
regularization qua establishment from a particular date that does
not necessarily mean that other person’s case is also automatically
proved alike other person.  In other words, every person has to
prove his case qua establishment independently by adducing
evidence.  It is only then such person is entitled to claim such
relief. [Paras 23-26][652-F-H; 653-A]
1.3 Several questions arise in the case at hand and need to
be answered before considering grant of appropriate relief, if any.
These questions when seen in the background facts of the case
are inter-linked with each other and relate to the main activity
which was being carried in the Chennai Port Trust and now shifted
to Ennore Port Trust largely. The disputes now being raised again
relate to the employment and regularization of the class IV
employees in the set up of Chennai Port Trust. [Para 27][653-B-
C]
1.4 The following questions do arise in this case. First,
whether the writ petit

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