LexERNAKULAM REGIONAL COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. ETC. versus NITHU & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1235 : 2024 INSC 230 Ernakulam Regional Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. Etc. v. Nithu & Ors. Etc. (Civil Appeals No. 1455 - 1459 of 2024) With (Civil Appeals No. 1460 - 1461 of 2024) With (Civil Appeal No. 1462 of 2024) 31 January 2024 [Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The appellant, a Cooperative Society, had issued a notification dated 29.01.2011 inviting applications for regular recruitment to, inter alia, the post of Plant Attender, Grade-III. The Respondents challenged the notification before the High Court of Kerala and prayed, inter alia, for their regularization on the post of Plant Attenders. The Respondents, admittedly, did not avail the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) but directly invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and filed a writ petition before the High Court. The appellant-Society had pleaded, before the High Court, inter alia, that the nominees did not have any right of permanent employment, and even otherwise, none of the Respondents had worked for over 200 days in a calendar year which disentitled them from any claim of permanent employment. However, the appellant was directed by the High Court to prepare a list of casual labourers from amongst the Respondents and consider their claims for regularization ; Whether the High Court was justified in directing the appellant to consider the Respondents’ claims for regularisation. Headnotes Constitution of India – Art.226 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Appeal against common judgment of the High Court of Kerala dated 09.01.2018 – Appellant was directed to prepare a list of casual labourers from amongst the Respondent and consider their claims for regularization in terms of State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 – 1236 [2024] 1 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Respondents’ claimed before the High Court that they were working as casual labourers on contract basis with the appellant-Society for several years; engaged continuously for a period of 60 days and then on rotational basis; all of them were in continuous service for a period of over 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months; and ought to be treated as permanent workers under the provisions of ID Act; and that Appellant-Society is an organization covered under the provisions of the ID Act – Remedy under the ID Act not invoked by the Respondents – During pendency of conciliation proceedings before the District Labour, instead of seeking remedies under the ID Act, Respondents continued to press the writ petition filed by them – Respondents admittedly did not invoke the provisions of the ID Act after the conciliation proceedings had failed – Did not seek a reference of the dispute to the Competent authority – Submissions of the Appellant that Respondents were engaged purely on a casual basis; nominated from amongst the members of the Apex Cooperative Society and that Terms and conditions of the Circulars made it clear that the nominees would not have any right of permanent employment and further that none of the Respondents had worked for over 200 days in a calendar year and therefore not entitled to claim permanent employment. Held: 1. All questions fall in the realm of disputed questions of fact – Would have required evidence to be lead and proper adjudication before an appropriate authority which would have been a remedy under the ID Act- Disputed questions of facts go to the very root of the matter – Judgment dated 09th January, 2018 which is quashed and set aside – Liberty granted to the Respondents to seek their remedies under the ID Act – Respondents continuing in service under the appellant-Society shall not be disturbed for a period of six months to enable them to seek appropriate legal recourse under the ID Act. [Paras 12, 21-24] 2. Powers of judicial review can always be exercised by a writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but wherever there are disputed questions of facts that need adjudication, it is best left to the competent forum to adjudicate the same by examining the evidence brought on record before any findings can be returned- Writ is a discretionary remedy; High Court to refuse grant of any writ if the aggrieved party can have an adequate or [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1237 Ernakulam Regional Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. Etc. v. Nithu & Ors. Etc. suitable remedy elsewhere unless
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.