MINISTRY OF TEXTILE versus MURARI LAL GUPTA & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 1235 · Decided: 07-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 1235 
MINISTRY OF TEXTILE 
V. 
MURARI LAL GUPTA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2509 of 2008) 
APRIL 7, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Labour Laws - Reference of Industrial dispute - Pursuant 
A 
B 
to order of High Court in a writ petition - Tribunal directing 
reinstatement with back wages - After passing of the award, c 
scheme under which the employee was employed, was . 
abandoned - Implementation of award sought from High Court 
• 
-Allowed by Single Judge and also by Division Bench of High 
Court - On appeal held: Direction of reinstatement and back 
wages set aside - In the peculiar facts of the case, direction 0 
issued to pay the employee Rs. 50, 0001- as full and final 
settlement. 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s. 10 - Reference 
under - Decision for - Held: It is within domain of the 
Government to decide the worth of a case for reference -
E 
Court should not direct reference to be made except in 
exceptional cases. 
· 
Respondent, appointed as a 'Chowkidar' with the 
appellant, filed a representation for regularization. It was 
rejected on the ground that the respondent was over-
F 
aged. He, thereafter served a notice seeking his 
reinstatement. He also filed applications seeking payment 
of difference in salary and for overtime wages. 
Conciliation proceedings failed. Application seeking 
reference of industrial dispute was rejected. He G 
approached High Court in writ petition. Pursuant to the 
judgment of High court, reference of industrial dispute was 
made to Industrial Court. Industrial Tribunal directed his 
reinstatement with back wages. Thereafter, the scheme 
1235 
H 
1236 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A under which the respondent was appointed, was 
abandoned. Respondent-employee filed writ petition 
seeking implementation of the order of the Tribunal. 
Employer-appellant also filed writ petition. Single Judge 
of High court dismissed the writ petition of the employer 
s and allowed that of the employee. Employer filed writ 
appeal (LPA) against both the orders. One LPA was 
dismissed as withdrawn while the other was dismissed 
on merits. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that direction for reinstatement 
C was not correct, and that writ petition wherein order 
directing reference was passed was belated. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Except in certain unexceptional cases 
D courts should not direct reference to be made. It is within 
the domain of the Government to decide as to in which 
case reference is to be made and in which case reference 
is not to be done. The reference was apparently made on 
the ground that the High Court had directed a reference 
E to be made. That was not factually correct. The High Court 
directed reconsideration of the matter and did not in fact 
direct reference to be made. [Para 4] (1238-G; 1239-A] 
2. In the peculiar facts of the case that the project 
has already been closed and that filing of the writ petition 
F was belated, it is directed that the respondent be paid an 
amount of Rs.50,000/- in full and final settlement of his 
claim. The direction for reinstatement and/or back wages 
stands set aside. (Paras 4 and 7] (1239-A, B, F, G] 
G 
State of M.P and Ors. v Arjun!al Rajak 2006 (2) SCC 
711; Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar 2006(5) 
sec 173 - relied on. 
H 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2509 
of 2008. 
r 
MINISTRY OF TEXTILE v.' MURARI LAL GUPTA & ANR. 
1237 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J) 
) 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.2005 of the High A 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LP.A. No. 1082/2004 
D.S. Mahr.a for the Appellant. 
Anitha Shenoy for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
)< 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a 'Division 
Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the appeal filed by c 
the appellant. Challenge in the appeal was to the judgment and 
order d~ted 21.9.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge in 
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4662 of 2002. 
• 
• • 
I 
• 
3. Background facts as projected by the respondent in the 
Writ Petition filed by him before the High Court are essentially D 
as follows: 
r 
Respondent was appointed as Chowkidar in Carpet 
Weaving Training Center, Bharatpur, Rajasthan on 24.8.1982. 
On 26.3.1985 respondent filed a representation for 
..• 
regularization. The same was rejected by order dated 20.5.1985 
E 
as he was over aged. Accordin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.