INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORPN. LTD. versus SHARMIK SENA AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 659 · Decided: 29-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORPN. LTD. 
A 
v. 
SHARMIK SENA AND ANR. 
JANUARY 29, 2001 
[S.S.M. QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Law: 
lndustricl Disputes Act, 1947: Sections 25-H, 25-N and 25-S. 
c 
Workmen-Regularisation of-Workmen were employed in a canteen 
run by the management through a contractor-High Court directed their 
regularisation subject to the worker, inter-alia, being within the prescribed 
minimum and maximum age limits-and providing that those not regularised 
may be retrenched under S.25-H-Supreme Court approved these conditions-
Subsequent(v in proceeding initiated to give effect to the said directions- D 
High Court directed that maximum age as limit be taken that of superannuation 
and retrenchment to be under S.25-N-Validity of-Held: Minimum and 
maximum age limits should be as at the time of the initial appointment of the 
workmen-Hence, High Court erred in directing that the maximum age limit 
as that of superannuation-Retrenchment compensation to be paid under E 
S. 25-N and re-employment to be considered under S.25-H-Facto(·ies Act, 
1948, S.46. 
Practice and Procedure: 
Contentions urged before High Court-Whether can be gone into- F 
Held: The question as to what is really argued before the High Court cannot 
be gone into as records of the High Court cannot be allowed to be 
contradicted-Hence, plea that contentions not correctly recorded by High 
Court, rejected. 
The Appellant-management was running a canteen in compliance with G 
the requirements of Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948, in which the 
respondent-workmen were employed purporting to be the employees under a 
contractor. The High Court directed the appellant-management to regularise 
the services of these workmen subject to their being within the prescribed 
minimum and maximum age limits and providing those not regularised that 
659 
I-I 
... 
660 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] I S.C.R. 
A may 'be retrenched under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
This Court approved these conditions. 
Subsequently in proceedings initiated to give effect to the said conditions 
the High Court directed that for the purposes of regularisation the maximum 
age limit should be taken as the age of superannuation and that the workmen 
B who did not fulfil the conditions for regularisation should be ri!trenched in 
terms of Section 25-N of the Act. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
C 
HELD: I.I. For regularising the services of the workmen, the minimum 
and the maximum age limits prescribed under the policy of the Corporation 
(18 years and 25 years respectively) has to be considered as at the time of 
their initial appointment. This condition is too clear to admit of any 
controversy. The order of the High Court that the maximum age should be 
the age of superannuation cannot be sustained. 1664-G-H; 665-Gf 
D 
E 
F 
Railway Parcel & Goods Handling Mazdoor Union v. Union of India, 
120001 1 LLJ !050; R.K. Panda v. Steel Authority of India, 11994] 5 SCC 
304; Parimal Chandra Raha v. life Insurance Corporation of India 119951 2 
Supp. SCC 611 and Indian Petrochemicals Corporation ltd. v. Sharmik Sena, 
119991 6 sec 439, referred to. 
1.2. The plea that the contentions urged by the parties are not correctly 
recorded by the High Court cannot be accepted. The question as to what was 
really argued before the High Court cannot be gone into as the records of the 
High Court cannot be allowed to be contradicted. 1665-C-Df 
State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, J19831 1 SCR 8, 
relied on. 
2. It is not disputed that the management is an industrial establishment 
to which Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 applies; if that be 
G so, Sections 25-N and 25-H read with Section 25-S will be attracted. Therefore, 
in the event of the management choosing to retrench the workmen who do 
not fulfil the conditions for regularisation, they shall be paid retrenchment 
compensation under Section 25-N and their cases for re-employment should 
be considered under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. (667-C-D( 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 892 of2001. 
\~ 
INDl/\N PETROCHEMICALS CORl'N. LTD. v. Slli\RMIK SENA [()Ui\DRI. J.J 661 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.4.2000 of the Bombay High A 
---
Court in W.P. No. 979 of2000. 
T.R. Andhyarujina, K.S. Parihar, S. Birla, M.M. Varma and ll.S. Parihar 
for the Appellants. 
K.K. Singhvi, R.R. Chandrachud, S. Pakale and Sanjay Parikh f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.