D. P. MAHESHWARI versus DELHI ADMN. & ORS.

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 949 · Decided: 14-09-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

, ' 
• 
D. P. MAftESHWARI 
v . 
. DELHI ADMN. & ORS. 
September 14, 1983 · 
[D. A. DESAI, 0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY AND 
A. VARADARAJAN, JJ,j 
949 
' 
lndustrlal Disputes Act-AdjudicatiOn of disputes-Duty of Tribunals and 
Courts while deciding Preliniinary Questions. 
Constitution of India-Arts. 226 and 136-Nature of jurisdiction-Courts 
not to be too astute to interfere with .exercise of juris4iction by Special tribunals at 
iriter-locutory stage$ and on prelimina,·y issues: 
An industrial dispute concerning the termination of .services of the 
appellant in 1969 was referred for adjudication by the Labour Court under ss. 
10 (I) (c) and 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act in the year 1970. The 
Managc::mc::nL of the con1pany in which he was employed ·questioned the 
reference itself by filing a petition under Art. 226 and when it was rejected, the 
Management raised a preliminary contention before the Labour Court that the 
appellant was not a •workman' and therefore the reference was incompetent. 
The Labour Court, after a detailed and careful examination. of ihe oral and 
documentary evidence produced by both -the appellant and the Management 
came to the conclusion that the appellant Was a •workman' under s. 2 (s) of the 
Act as he was employed mainly for clerical duties. This finding was challenged 
b)' the Management once again by filing a petition under Art. 226 and a Single 
Judge of the High Court allowed the same and quashed the order of the Labour 
Court as welJ as the reference made by the Governrnent. On his appeal having 
been rejected by a Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant approached 
this Court under ·Art. 136. 
A1lowing the appeal, 
HELD : The nature of jurh.dic~ion under Art. 226 is supervisory and not 
appellate while that under Art. 136 is·primirily supervisory but the Court may 
exercise all necessary appellate Powers to do_ substantial justice. In the exercise 
Of such jurisdiction neither the l:ligh Court nor this Court is required to be too 
astute to interfere wit11 the exercise of_ jurisdiction by sp~cial tribunals at 
interlocutor~ stages ,and on preliminary issues. 
[951 G-H] 
Tribunals like Industrial Tribunals are constituted to decide expedi:.. 
. tiously sp'eciai"kinds of disputes and their jurisdiction to so decide is not to be 
stifled by all manner of preliminary objections and jpurneyings up and down. 
Tribunals and Court.; wi10 are requested to decide preliminary question~ must 
A 
c 
D 
E 
G 
B 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SuPREME COURT REPORTS 
ask ·themselves whether such threshold part-adjudication is reaIJY necessary and 
whether it will not iead to other woeful consequences. Th.ere was a time when 
it was thought prudent and wise to decide prelimina'ry issues first. But the 
time appears to have arrived for a reversal of that policy. It is better that 
tribunals, particularly those entrusted with the tisk of adjudicMing Labour 
disputes where delay may lead to 11].isery and jeoPiardise indµstriai pea'ce, should 
decide all issues in dispute at the-same time withOut trying some of' them as 
preliminary issues. Nor ·should High Courts.in the exercise or their jurisdiction 
under Art.· 226 stop proceeding$ before a Tribunal so that a preliminary issues 
may be decided by thorn. Neither the jurisdiction of the High Court\ under 
Art. 226 nor the jurisdiction of this Court under.Art 136 may be allowed to 
be exploited by those who can well afford to wait to the detriment of those who 
call ill afford to wait by dragging the latter from Court to Court for adjudi~ 
cation o-f peripheral issues, avoiding decision on- issues- more vital to them. 
Articles 226 and 136 are not _meant to be used to break the resistance of 
workmen in this fashion. 
(951 F, C-D] 
. 
The instant case relates to a ... dispute originating in 1969 and referred for 
adjudication in 1970 whicf1 is. still at the stage of decision of a preliminary 
objec!ion. The Labour Court considered the entire evidence and recorded a 
positive finding that that appellant who was discharging duties of a clerical 
nature was a •workman'. The Single Judge of the High Court did not refer to 
a single iten1· of evidence while reversing the finding of the Labour Court. He 
a'ppeared to differ from the Labour Court. on a queStion of fact on the basis of 
a generali~ation without" reference to SR,ecific evidence. The Division Bench 
_which affirrr,ed the judgment of the Single Judge also fead the judgment of the 
Labou~ Court 

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