LexM/S. U.P.S.R.T.C. versus IMTIAZ HUSSAIN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MIS. U.P.S.R.T.C. A v. IMTIAZ HUSSAIN DECEMBER 12, 2005 [ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] B Labour Laws: Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 6(6)-Scope and ambit of-Termination-Labour Court directed reinstatement-But did not C grant back-wages as it concluded that the workman was not permanent- Application under S.6(6) alleging such conclusion by Court to be incorrect- Labour Court modified its original award and passed certain directions on payment of salary and allowances till re-instatement-Order of Labour Court modifying its original award-Validity of-Held, not valid-Principles D applicable to S. 152 CPC are clearly applicable to S. 6(6)-Hence, only clerical/accidental omissions or mistakes could be corrected-and not omissions or mistakes which go to merits of the case resulting in passing of effective judicial orders after the judgment-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Section 152. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 152-Powers under-Scope of-Discussed-Maxims of equity-Applicability of-Maxims-'Actus curiae neminem gravabit' and"Lex non cogit ad impossibilia". E Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Sections 151 & 152-Powers under- Misuse of-Liberal construction and application of Ss. 151 & 152 by Courts F below even after passing of effective orders in /is pending before them noticed with contempt. . Respondent, appointed as conductor with the Appellant-corporation was found not to have issued tickets to passengers. He was placed under suspension and subsequently removed from service. Respondent raised industrial dispute. G The Labour Court held that disciplinary enquiry against the Respondent was not conducted in a fair manner and accordingly directed his re-instatement However, the Court being of the view that the Respondent was not in the list of permanent conductors, directed that he was not entitled to get any back- 725 II 726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A wages. Subsequently an application under Section 6(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed stating that the conclusion of the Labour Court that Respondent was not in the permanent list of Conductors was not correct and therefore, he was entitled to the benefit of back-wages. · Labour Court modified the original award and passed certain directions about payment of salary and allowances till re-instatement. Aggrieved, Appellant B filed writ petition before High Court which held that on the facts of the case, Respondent was entitled to 50% backwages with interest. In appeal to this Court it was contended that the order passed by the Labour Court modifying the original award was clearly beyond the scope and C ambit of Section 6(6) of the U.P. Act, which only permitted correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the award or errors arising in the award from any accidental slip or omission, and that the High Court decided the writ petition without addressing itself to this vital question. D Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. Section 6(6) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act is similar to Section 152 CPC. There is no similar provision in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (729-G I 2.1. Section 152 provides for corre~tion of clerical or arithmetical E mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the Court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate of passing effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. (729-H; 730-AI F 2.2. The settled position of law is that after the passing of the judgment, decree or order, the same becomes final subject to any further avenues of remedies provided in respect of the same and the very Court or the tribunal, on mere change of view, is not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed except by means of review, if statutorily G provided specifically therefor and subject to the conditions or limitations provided therein. The powers under Section 152 CPC are neither to be equated with the power of review nor can be said to be akin to review or. even said to clothe the Court concerned under the guise of invoking after the result of the judgment earlier rendered, in its entirety or any portion or part of it. The corrections contemplated are of correcting only accidental omissions or H mistakes and not all omis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.