LexDILIP MANI DUBEY versus M/S SIEL LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
529
DILIP MANI DUBEY
v.
M/S SIEL LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7545-7546 of 2009)
MARCH 12, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
s. 6-N – Termination of workman – Industrial reference –
Industrial Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the workman
and directed his reinstatement with back wages – In Writ petition,
award of the Tribunal set aside – However, High Court directed
that whatever amount, paid to the workman in compliance with order
passed u/s. 17-B proceedings, during pendency of litigation, shall
not be recovered – Review petition dismissed – On appeal,
held: High Court rightly concluded that the workman did not work
continuously for one year – Such finding of fact is binding on
Supreme Court and cannot be examined de novo in appellate
jurisdiction u/Art. 136 of Constitution – High Court also rightly
held that amount paid to the workman pursuant to order passed
u/s. 17-B of ID Act was not recoverable – Constitution of India –
Art. 136 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s. 17-B.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The main question, which arose for consideration
before the Industrial Tribunal and the High Court, was whether
the appellant (workman) was in continuous service for one year
as provided under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act. A finding on such question being a finding of fact, this Court
cannot examine such question de novo by appreciating the whole
evidence adduced by the parties again in the present appeals.
The High Court examined the matter in detail and the finding of
the High Court on this question being a finding of fact is binding
on this Court. The High Court, rightly came to a conclusion that
the workman did not work continuously for one year with the
employer. [Paras 11, 13 and 16] [532-B-D, G-H]
[2019] 3 S.C.R. 529
529
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 3 S.C.R.
2. This Court has held that the proceedings under Section
17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are independent
proceedings in nature and are not dependent upon the final order
passed in the main proceedings. If the Court/Tribunal, eventually
upholds the termination order as being legal against the workman,
yet the employer will have no right to recover the amount already
paid by him to the delinquent workman pursuant to order passed
under Section 17-B of the ID Act during pendency of these
proceedings. The High Court despite setting aside the award of
the Industrial Tribunal, rightly directed that whatever amount,
which has so far been paid to the workman by the employer in
compliance with the order passed under Section 17-B of ID Act
proceedings during pendency of the litigation, the same will not
be recoverable from the appellant on the strength of the impugned
order. Such direction issued by the High Court against the
employer, is in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in
that behalf. [Paras 19, 20, 21 and 22] [533-C-G]
Sriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Mahak Singh &
Ors. (2007) 4 SCC 94: [2007] 3 SCR 783
– distinguished.
Dena Bank v. Kirtikumar T. Patel (1999) 2 SCC 106:
[1997] 5 Suppl. SCR 263; Dena Bank v. Ghanshyam
(2001) 5 SCC 169 : [2001] 3 SCR 591; Rajeshwar
Mahto v. Alok Kumar Gupta (2018) 4 SCC 341 :
[2018] 2 SCR 529 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2007] 3 SCR 783
distinguished
Para 14
[1997] 5 Suppl. SCR 263 relied on
Para 22
[2001] 3 SCR 591
relied on
Para 22
[2018] 2 SCR 529
relied on
Para 22
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7545-
7546 of 2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2007 and 05.02.2008
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.4435 of 1999 and C.M. Review Application No.1098 of 2008
respectively.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
531
Devvrat, Abhijit Banerjee, Vinod Kr. Goyal, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Debal Banerji, Sr. Adv., Ms. Meera Mathur, Shrish Kumar Misra,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. These appeals are directed
against the final judgment and orders dated 29.11.2007 and 05.02.2008
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No.4435
of 1999 and C.M. Review Application No.1098 of 2008 respectively
whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent
No.1 herein and dismissed the review petition filed by the appellant herein.
2. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of
these appExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.