LexEMPLOYER IN RELATION TO MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN INSTITUTE LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
EMPLOYER IN RELATION TO MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL MINE A PLANNING AND DESIGN INSTITUTE LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. JANUARY 25, 2001 B [S.S.M. QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] Labour Law: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: c Section 17-B-Judgment under-Tests to determine-Employer terminated the services of workmen-Tribunal directed reinstatement of the workmen with 40 per cent back wages-However, Single Judge of High Court directed the employer to pay fir// wages to the ·workmen-Division Bench held that appeal against the order of Single Judge not maintainable since the order was not D 'judgment" within the meaning of Cl. I 0 of the Letters Patent of Patna- Correctness of-Held: The test to determine whether an interlocutory order is judgment for the purposes of Letters Patent is: whether the order is a final determination affecting vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties concerned-The order passed by the Single Judge determines the entitlement E of the workmen to receive benefits and imposes an obligation on the employer to pay such benefits-The order of the Single Judge, therefore, is a judgment' within the meaning of Cl. IO of the Letters Patent of Patna-Hence, LPA against the order of Single Judge maintainable-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, S.2 (9)-Letters Patent of Patna, Cl. JO. Words and Phrases: "Judgment "-Meaning of-Jn the context of Cl. J 0 of the Letters Patent of Patna. F The appellant-employer terminated the services of the respondent- G workmen. The Industrial Tribunal held that the termination was not justified and ordered their reinstatement with 40 per cent back wages. The appellant filed writ petition before the High Court challenging the aforesaid award. The respondents claimed relief under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the writ petition. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the ~I H 652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12001 I I S.CR. A application filed by the respondents and directed the appellant to pay full wages to them. The appellant challenged the correctness of the aforesaid order in the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) before the Division Bench of the High Court which held that against the order passed by the Single Judge in terms of B Section 17-B of the l.D. Act, the LPA was not maintainable because that order was not 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Patna. Hence this appeal. . Allowing the appeal, the Court C HELD: I. A close reading of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of Calcutta shows that it has three limbs: we are concerned with the first limb which specifies the type of judgments of one judge of the High Court which is appealable in that High Court and the categories of judgments/orders which are excluded from its ambit. The analysis of Clause 15 of the Letters Parent D of Calcutta will equally apply to Clause I 0 of the Letters Patent of Patna. It follows that an appeal shall lie to a larger Bench of the High Court from a Judgment of one Judge of the said High Court or one judge of any Division Court pursuant to Article 225 of the Constitution of India. 1655-D;G-HI 2.1. The expression "judgment" is not defined in Letters Patent of E Patna. It is now well settled that definition of 'judgment' in Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has no application to Letters Patent. 1656-EI Asrumati Debi v. Kumar Rupendra Deb Rajkot, I 19531 SCR 1159; Shah Badulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, 1198114 SCC 8; Justices of the Peace F for Calcutta v. Oriental Gas Co. 8 Beng. LR 433; Dayabhai v. Murugappa -f- Chelliar ILR 13 Rang. 457; Tuljaram v. Alagappa, ILR 35 Mad. I and Sonebai v. Ahmedbhai, 9 Born HCR 398, referred to. 2.2. To determine the question whether an interlocutory order passed by one judge of a High Court falls within the meaning of 'judgment' for G purposes of Letters Patent the test is: whether the order is a final determination affecting vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties concerned. This has to be ascertained on the facts of each case. 1658-B-q 3. SectiOn 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 confers valuable ·rights on the workmen and correspondingly imposes onerous obligations on H the employer. The order in question passed by the Single Judge determines CENTRllL MINE l'L/\NNING INSTITUTE LTD.,. U.0.1. [QU/\DRI. J] 653 the entitlement of the workmen to receive benefits and imposes an obligation A on the appellant
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.