M/S. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING PVT. LTD. versus KRISHNA KANT PANDEY

Citation: [2015] 1 S.C.R. 288 · Decided: 06-01-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 288 
M/S. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING PVT. LTD. 
v. 
KRISHNA KANT PANDEY 
(Civil Appeal No.28 of 2015) 
JANUARY 06, 2015 
[M.Y. EQBAL AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-:- s.2(z) and 
s. 6 - Termination of service - Disputed before Labour court 
C - Reference dismissed as not maintainable holding that the 
employee was not a workman as defined uls 2(z) -
Writ 
petition - High Court allowed the petition holding that though 
the employee was not covered under the definition of 
workman, he shall be classified as workman - High Court alsc 
D directed the Government to make an amendment in s.2(z) -
On appeal, held: Labour court rightly held that the employee 
was not a workman within the meaning of s. 2(z} - High Court 
exceeded its jurisdiction u!Art.2261227 of the Constitution by 
interfering with finding of facts and by directing the 
E 
Government to make amendments in s.2(z) - Constitution of 
India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.The order of the Tribunal would show that 
F the respondent-workman accepted different works 
assigned to him which were purely of supervisory and 
managerial nature. The details of 15 managerial/ 
supervisory works assigned to the respondent have been 
analyzed by the Tribunal which finally came to the 
G conclusion that the respondent is not a workman within 
the meaning ofSection 2(z) of the Act. [para 16] [303-E-F] 
H 
Bir/a Corpn. Ltd .. vs. Rajeshwar Mahato and Others, 
(2001) 10 sec 611 - relied on. 
288 
PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING PVT. LTD. v. KRISHNA 
289 
KANT PANDEY 
2. The High Court has exceeded in exercise of its A 
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution 
in interfering with the finding of facts recorded by the 
Labour Court. The High Court in the guise of exercising 
its jurisdiction, normally should not interfere under Article 
227 of the Constitution and convert itself into a court of B 
appeal. [para 12] [299-A"B] 
Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs. Ashalata S. 
Guram 1986 (3) SCR 866 = (1986) 4 SCC 447; Indian 
Overseas Bank vs. 1.0.B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union and C 
Another2000 (2) SCR 1212 = (2000) 4 SCC 245 - relied on. 
3. The High Court committed grave error in holding 
that although the respondent is not covered under the 
definition of workman as defined under Section 2(z) of the 
Act he shall be classified as a workman. The High Court D 
further exceeded its jurisdiction in advising the 
Government to make an amendment in Section 2(z) of the 
Act and to exclude some clauses. The order passed by 
the High Court cannot be sustained in law. [para 17] [303-
G-H; 304-A] 
E 
S.K. Mani vs. Mis. Carona Sahu Company Limited and 
Ors.1994 (2) SCR 333 = (1994) 3 SCC 51 O; Mis. UP. Electric 
Supply Co., Ltd. vs. The Workmen of Mis. S.N. Choudhary 
I 
Contractors and Anr., (1960) 3 SCR 189; TISCO Ltd. v. State 
F 
of Jharkhand, 2013 (9) SCR 437 = (2014) 1 SCC 536, and 
Bhogpur Coop Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Harmesh Kumar 2006 
(8) Suppl. SCR 1021 = (2006) 13 SCC 28 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2001) 10 sec 611 
referred to 
para 7 
G 
1994 (2) SCR 333 
referred to 
para 7 
. 
(1960) 3 SCR 189 
referred to 
para 8 
2013 (9) SCR 437 
referred to 
para 8 
H 
A 
B 
290 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 1021 referred to 
1986 (3) SCR 866 
relied on 
2001 (1 O) sec 611 
2000 (2) SCR 1212 
relied on 
relied on 
para 8 
para 13 
para 14 
para 15 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 28 
of 2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23-05-2013 of the 
C 
High Court of Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition 
No. 102 (MS) of 2008. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
C.U. Singh, Ashlesha Srivastava, Dheeraj Nair for the 
appellant. 
Kavin Gulati, Avi Tandon, Rohit Sthalekar (For T. Mahipal) 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M.Y.EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against 
judgment and order dated 23.5.2013 of the High Court of 
Allahabad at Lucknow Bench whereby learned Single Judge 
classifying the respondent as 'workman' allowed the writ 
petition preferred by him, quashed the order dated August 24, 
2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal 11, State of Uttar Pradesh, 
Lucknow (in short, 'the Tribunal') and directed the Tribunal to 
decide respondent's Case No.84/2004 on merit. 
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent was 
appointed on the post of Operator/Technician
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.