CHAUHARYA TRIPATHI & ORS. versus L.L.C. OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 4 S.C.R. 186 · Decided: 11-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2015]4S.C.R.186 
CHAUHARYA TRIPATHI & ORS. 
v. 
L.l.C. OF INDIA & ORS. 
Civil Appeal Nos. 5690-5691 of 2010 
MARCH 11, 2015 
(DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - ss. 10(1), 2(s), 2(a)-
Reference made under - Persons aggrieved working as 
Development Officers in UC - Adjudicability by the tribunal 
- Held: Development Officers working in UC are not workmen 
o u/s. 2(s)oftheAct-Thus, the/abourcourthasnojurisdiction 
to deal with the /is in question. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. R. Suresh 2008 
(5) SCR 208: (2008) 11 SCC 319- per incuricffn. 
Mukesh K. Tripathi vs. Senior Divisional Manager, UC 
& Ors. 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 127: (2004) 8 SCC 387; 
S.K. Verma vs. Mahesh Chandra &Anr. 1983 (3) SCR 
799: (1983) 4 SCC 214; Workmen vs. Indian Standards 
Institution 1976 (2) SCR 138: (1975) 2 SCC 847; H.R. 
Adhyanthya & Ors. Vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd. & Ors. (1995) 
5 SCC 737; May & Baker (India) Ltd. vs. Workmen AIR 
1967 SC 678; Western India Match Co. Ltd. vs. 
Workmen 1964 SCR 560: AIR 1964 SC 472; Burmah 
Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. of India Ltd. vs. 
Burmah Shell Management Staff Association 1971 (2) 
SCR 758: (1970) 3 SCC 378; M. Venugopa/ vs. UC of 
India 1994 (1) SCR 433: (1994) 2 SCC 323; Ambica 
Quarryh Works etc. v. State of Gujarat AIR 1987 SC 
186 
, CHAUHARYA TRIPATHI &ORS. v. L.l.C. OF INDIA 
187 
1073: 1987 (1) SCR562; AR. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak 
A 
1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 1 : (1988) 2 SCC 602; Punjab 
Land Development & Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. 
Labour Court 1990 (3) SCR 111: (1990) 3 SCC 682; 
State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. (1991) 4 
B 
SCC 139; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of 
Maharashtra (2011) 1SCC694: 2010 (15) SCR 201 -
referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
c 
2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 127 
referred to 
Para 5 
2008 (5) SCR 208 
referred to 
Para 5 
1983 (3) SCR 799 
referred to 
Para 7 
D 
1976 (2) SCR 138 
referred to 
Para 7 
(1995) 5 sec 737 
referred to 
Para 8 
AIR 1967 SC 678 
referred to 
Para 8 
E 
1964 SCR 560 
referred to 
Para 8 
1971 (2) SCR758 
referred to 
Para 8 
1994 (1) SCR 433 . 
referred to 
Para 12 
F 
1987 (1) SCR 562 
referred to 
Para 15 
1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 1 
referred to 
Para 16 
1990 (3) SCR 111 
referred to 
Para 16 
G 
(1991) 4 sec 139 
per incuriam 
Para 16 
2010 (15) SCR 201 
referred to 
Para 16 
H 
188 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
5690-5691 of 2010. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.04.2007 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. W. P. No. 
B 21164 of 1998 and dated 23.09.2008 in Civil Misc. Review 
Application No. 12736 of 2007 in Civil Misc. W. P. No. 21164 
of1998 
WITH 
C C.A.Nos.6547-6549of2010 
S. P. Singh, Keshav Choudhary, Vimal Chandra S. 
Dave, G. Prakash, Beena Prakash, Priyanka Prakash for the 
D Appellants. 
E 
Kailash Vasdev, Shreyans Singhvi, Umrao Singh R., 
S. Rajappa for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. In these appeals, the seminal 
question that emerges for consideration is whether the High 
Court of Allahabad in Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.21164 · 
of 1998 has justifiably overturned the award passed by the 
F Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, 
Kanpur (for short, 'the Tribunal') on the foundation that the 
aggrieved persons, at whose instance a :reference was made 
under Sections 10(1) and 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947 (for brevity, 'the Act'), was not ad judicable by the 2 tribunal, 
G for the aggrieved persons were working as Development 
Officers in the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) and hence, 
they could be treated as workmen under the schematic context 
of the Act and, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction 
H to deal with the /is in question. 
CHAUHARYA TRIPATHI &ORS. v. L.l.C. OF INDIA 
189 
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
2. Regard being had to the aforesaid issue, we are not A 
required to state the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that 
the Central Gov.ernment had 
made a reference, 
vide 
notification MO E-17012/35/89-iB(B) dated 4.12.1989, of 
the following dispute for adjudication: 
Whether the action of the management of UC of India in 
imposing penalty of reduction of salary of Shri R.C. 
Dubey, C. Tripathi, Nankoo Singh, D.K. Shukla and N.K. 
Misra, Development Offices by three steps in their time 
8 
scale of pay is justified? If not, to what relief the workman 
C 
concer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.