LexHIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR. versus HIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ UNION & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 424 : 2023 INSC 799 424 CASE DETAILS HIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR. v. HIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ UNION & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 8801 of 2012) AUGUST 17, 2023 [HIMA KOHLI AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The stand taken by the appellants- Management was that in its establishment, there were more than 100 workmen, hence, reference of a dispute to the Labour Court was without jurisdiction and consequently, any award passed by the Labour Court was not sustainable, whether the stand taken by the appellants-Management justifi ed. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Earlier, High Court had granted liberty for correction of factual error to substantiate that there were more than 100 workmen and the appellant could place on record the documents – Pursuant thereto, the Labour Court admitted application of appellant for submitting documents by order dated 30.06.2010 – The objection raised by the respondents-workmen was dismissed by order 12.08.2010 and application to summon offi cial witnesses by appellants was allowed – Writ petition by respondents-workmen – High Court set aside the said three orders (30.06.2010, 12.08.2010 and 06.10.2010) passed by the Labour Court – Propriety: Held: As the number of workmen employed in the establishment has a direct relation with the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal to deal with the matter, it would be appropriate to refer to the material which was placed on record by the appellants-Management before the Labour Court, after the earlier writ petition fi led by the appellants- Management was disposed of with liberty to the Management to move for correction of factual error – A perusal of the documents prima facie shows that more than 100 workmen were employed by the appellants-Management from 1999-2000 to 2009-2010 – An application was fi led by the respondents- 425 workmen on 09.10.2001 with the appellants-Management raising certain demands – It was on the basis thereof that, reference was made to the Labour Court by the Labour Commissioner – The record showing that the appellants- Management was employing more than 100 workmen, was available and was also a part of the earlier proceedings before the Labour Commissioner – On facts, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Labour Court, as the material permitted to be placed on record will go to the root of the case in determining the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate the matter – Thus, matter is remitted back to the Labour Court and appellant-management is permitted to lead evidence to substantiate that they were employing more than 100 workmen during relevant period – The impugned order passed by the High Court and the three orders passed by the Labour Court set aside. [Paras 16, 17, 20, 22, 23] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Whether a matter can be remitted back to the Labour Court for a decision afresh: Held: Liberty was given by the Supreme Court in Santhosh Bansi Mahajan’s case to fi le the said document before the Labour Court and the matter was remitted back to the Labour Court to be decided afresh. [Para 21] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Santhosh Bansi Mahajan v. State Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh and others, (1984) Supp. SCC 193; Bundi Zila Petrol Pump Dealers Association, Bundi v. Sanyojak Bundi Zila Petrol Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), (2019) 5 SCC 337 : [2019] 2 SCR 717 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.8801 of 2012. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.05.2011 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore in WP No.824 of 2011. Appearances: S. Hariharan, Vikash Singh, Advs. for the Appellants. Sunil Kumar Jain, Ms. Rashika Swarup, Sunny Choudhary, Sandeep Sharma, Karan Bishnoi, Advs. for the Respondents. HIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR. v. HIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ UNION & ANR. 426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT RAJESH BINDAL, J. 1. Aggrieved against the order1 passed by the High Court2 in the Writ Petition3 fi led under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Management is before this Court in appeal. Vide the aforesaid order1, three orders4, passed by the Labour Court5, were set aside with a direction to the Labour Court to allow the appellants-Management to exercise liberty only in relation to correction of factual errors in the order. FACTS 2. The facts of the ca
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.