GARDEN REACH SHIPBUILDERS AND ENGINEERS LIMITED versus GRSE LIMITED WORKMENS UNION & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1813 · Decided: 25-02-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPANKAR DATTA, RAJESH BINDAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1813 : 2025 INSC 363
Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited 
v. 
GRSE Limited Workmens Union & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 3243 of 2025)
25 February 2025
[Dipankar Datta and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether judicial discipline and propriety were maintained, in the light 
of r.26 of the Appellate Side Rules of the High Court at Calcutta, 
1966 in relation to applications u/Art.226 and the powers of the 
Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court as the master of the roster.
Headnotes†
Judicial discipline and propriety – Principles of – Appellate 
Side Rules of the High Court at Calcutta, 1966 – r.26 – Letters 
Patent – cl.15 – Intra-court appeal – Adjudication by bench of 
High Court without allocation by Chief Justice – Validity – Writ 
petition filed in the High Court pertaining to compassionate 
appointment to the writ petitioners – Single Judge of the High 
Court delisted the writ petition awaiting a decision of this 
Court on the reference made to a larger bench with liberty 
to mention after the reference is answered – Single Judge, 
despite referring to the decision of the Supreme Court that 
had settled the issue as regards the policy for compassionate 
appointment, refrained from proceeding with hearing of the 
writ petition on the specious ground of the pending reference – 
Intra-court appeal before the appellate court-Division Bench 
against the order of delisting, on the suggestion of the parties 
for disposal of the writ by the appellate court – Order passed 
by the predecessor Division Bench, pursuant thereto records 
of the writ petition were placed before the Division Bench that 
passed the impugned order – Challenge to:
Held: Chief Justice of the High Court, being the primus inter 
pares, has been vested with the power and authority to set the 
roster and such roster is final and binding on all the ‘Companion 
Justices’ of the said court – Any order which a bench, comprising 
of two judges or a single judge, may choose to make in a case 
1814
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
that is not placed before them/him by the Chief Justice of the High 
Court or in accordance with His Lordship’s directions, is without 
jurisdiction – Adjudication, beyond allocation, is void and such 
adjudication has to be considered a nullity – On facts, even if an 
intra-court appeal was maintainable against the order of delisting, 
at the highest, intervention to the limited extent of requesting the 
Single Judge to decide the writ petition in accordance with law 
was open and permissible – Single Judge not having referred the 
writ petition to a bench of two Judges for hearing, the predecessor 
Division Bench was not correct in accepting the suggestion of the 
parties and agreeing to hear the writ petition without having any 
authorization from the Chief Justice in this behalf – Consent does 
not confer jurisdiction – Judicial order based on consent of the 
parties, is against the Writ Rules and seeks to unsettle and even 
override the determination made by the Chief Justice, could not have 
vested jurisdiction in the appellate court to hear the pending writ 
petition – As per the roster set by the Chief Justice, determination 
was not given either to the predecessor Division Bench or to the 
Division Bench to hear writ petitions under ‘Service (Group VI)’ of 
the Classification List, but to the Single Benches on the relevant 
dates – Thus, neither the predecessor Division Bench nor the 
Division Bench of the High Court could have assumed jurisdiction 
to hear the writ petition – Order by the predecessor Division Bench 
and the impugned order without jurisdiction – Impugned order 
set aside – Matter remanded to the High Court – Constitution of 
India – Arts.225, 226. [Paras 7-10]
Case Law Cited
Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India 
[2017] 12 SCR 331 : (2018) 1 SCC 196 – followed.
Sohan Lal Baid v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1990 Calcutta 
168 – approved.
State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand [1997] 6 Supp. SCR 1 : 
(1998) 1 SCC 1 – relied on.
State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari [2019] 3 SCR 718 : 
(2019) 5 SCC 600; N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka [2020] 3 
SCR 1177 : (2020) 7 SCC 617; Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben 
D. Kania [1982] 1 SCR 187 : (1981) 4 SCC 8 – referred to.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 
1815
Garden Reach Shipbuilders And Engineers Limited v.  
GRSE Limited Workmens Union & Ors.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Appellate Side Rules of the H

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