M/S MITRA S.P. (P) LTD. & ANR. versus DHIREN KUMAR

Citation: [2022] 6 S.C.R. 871 · Decided: 04-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
871
M/S MITRA S.P. (P) LTD. & ANR.
v.
DHIREN KUMAR
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4863-4866 of 2022)
AUGUST 04, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Labour Laws – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.33(C)(2) –
Single Judge of High Court passed common judgment - dismissing
the writ petition preferred by the Management in which the
Management challenged the original judgment and award passed
by the Labour Court and allowing the writ petition preferred by the
workman against the order of Labour Court rejecting his s.33(C)(2)
application – Held: So far as challenge to the award passed by the
Labour Court by the Management is concerned, there was only one
submission with respect to territorial jurisdiction and the Single
Judge negatived the same – The same does not warrant any
interference – However, at the same time, while allowing the writ
petition preferred by the workman, there was no discussion at all
by the Single Judge on the order passed by the Labour Court
rejecting the s.33(C)(2) application – The Single Judge ought to
have given some findings on the order passed by the Labour Court
rejecting the s.33(C)(2) application – Under the circumstances, matter
remitted back to Single Judge of High Court to decide writ petition
preferred by the workman afresh, on merits.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4863-
4866 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2022 of the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in Writ Appeal Nos.615 and 617 of 2021
and Order dated 28.12.2018 in Writ Petition Nos.2955 of 2001 and 5271
of 2009.
Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Dhananjaya Mishra, Ratinesh Rai,
Navneet Dogra, Ramendra Mohan Patnaik, Advs. for the Appellants.
K. Parameshwar, Pai Amit, Abhiyudaya Vats, Advs. for the
Respondent.
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 871
871
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
872
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.
615/2021 and 617/2017 in respective Writ Petition Nos. 2955/2021 and
5271/2009, the Management has preferred the present appeals.
2. The respondent – workman was appointed as a Junior
Supervisor with the company’s branch at Visakhapatnam. While he was
working at Visakhapatnam, he was transferred to Jharsuguda in State
of Orissa vide order dated 20.07.1997. The workman instead of joining
at the place of transfer submitted a representation to the Director
requesting for transfer to Mangalore in Karnataka State. The same was
not acceded to. Challenging the said order of transfer, the workman
filed O.S. No. 1602/1997. The Civil Court did not grant any relief as
prayed by the workman. Thereafter, the workman was relieved by the
branch office at Visakhapatnam on 14.08.1997. Though the said relieving
order was received by the workman, he neither handed over the charge
at Visakhapatnam nor did he report for duty at Jharsuguda office.
Therefore, the management treated him as deemed to have been relieved
w.e.f. 14.08.1997 from Visakhapatnam office. Thereafter, the
management issued a show cause notice dated 24.10.1997 to comply
with the directions of transfer or else disciplinary action would be initiated
against the workman. Thereafter, the workman was placed under
suspension. Domestic enquiry was ordered. The enquiry proceeded ex-
parte. Subsequently, the management dismissed the workman from
service w.e.f. 15.09.1998. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the workman
filed I.D. No. 219/1998 before the Labour Court. The Labour Court
vide judgment and award dated 23.10.2000 modified the order of dismissal
with stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and ordered for
reinstatement of the workman into service, with a direction to the
workman to join at the place of his transfer i.e., at Jharsuguda within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which,
he shall not be entitled to the reinstatement. The Labour Court also
further directed that the management shall consider the request of the
workman for retransfer to Visakhapatnam or Mangalore after the
workman joins at his new station and that if the workman fails to report
for duty at Jharsuguda within one month he shall not be entitled to back
wages or continuity of service. The management filed W.P. No. 2955/
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
873
2001 before the learned Single Judge of the High Court. On 22.02.2001
while admitting the writ petition, the learned Sing
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.