NATIONAL KAMGAR UNION versus KRAN RADER PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 74 · Decided: 05-01-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
74
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
NATIONAL KAMGAR UNION
v.
KRAN RADER PVT. LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2018)
JANUARY 05, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947– Chapter VB – s.25K –
Applicability of – Closure of manufacturing unit by factory owner
– Issuance of closure notice by the owner – Complaint by appellant-
Union against the factory owner – Industrial Court held the closure
illegal since 115 workers were found working at the relevant time
and s.25K was not complied with while effecting the closure of the
unit – However, High Court held that 99 workers were found
working in the Unit at the relevant time, thus, compliance of s.25K
while declaring the closure not required – Interference with – Held:
Reasoning assigned by the High Court is just and reasonable, thus,
does not call for interference – Total strength of workers employed
at the relevant time in Unit was 99 and that the status of 16 disputed
employees could not be conclusively proved to be that of a
“workman” – Appellant in order to prove the status of 16 employees,
did not adduce any cogent evidence as against the evidence of the
factory owner, thus, it was not possible for this Court to hold that
the finding of the High Court is wholly arbitrary or illegal or against
the evidence – Since the strength of workers was below 100, it was
not necessary for the factory owner to ensure compliance of
Chapter VB – s.25-K had no application to respondent No.1 – Thus,
it is just and proper to award in lump sum a compensation of
Rs.2,50,000/- to each worker who did not accept the compensation,
after making proper verification – Maharashtra Recognition of
Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
– s.28 – Sch. IV Items 9, 10.
Constitution of India – Art. 136 – Appeal under – Question
of fact – Held: Is to be decided by the Courts on appreciation of
evidence adduced by the parties – Once the Courts record a finding
on such question, be that of concurrence or reversal, the finding is
usually held binding on this Court – Only when such finding is
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 74
74
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
75
found to be against any provision of law or evidence or is perverse,
it would not be held binding on the superior Court – Even if the
question raised is one of the mixed question of fact and law, this
Court would not readily interfere with the conclusion unless it is
manifestly or obviously erroneous.
Art. 227 – Supervisory jurisdiction – Exercise of – When –
Held: While recording a finding, if it is noticed by the High Court
that the subordinate Court has failed to take into consideration the
material evidence or recorded a finding without there being any
evidence, then the High Court would be entitled to interfere in such
finding in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction u/Art. 227.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There is no good ground to interfere in the
impugned judgment of the High Court. The reasoning assigned
by the High Court appears to be just and reasonable calling no
interference. [Para 13][81-A]
1.2 If the strength of the workers was above 100 at the
relevant time, in that event, the provisions of Section 25-K of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were applicable to respondent
No.1 whereas if the strength was below 100, in such event, the
provisions of Section 25K had no application. In the case of former,
the appellant-Union succeeds and in the case of later, respondent
No.1 succeeds. [Para 15][81-C-D]
1.3 The question as to what is the total strength of the
workers employed in the Unit or, in other words, how many
workers were working in a particular unit is essentially a question
of fact. Such question is required to be decided by the Courts on
appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. Once the Courts
record a finding on such question, be that of concurrence or
reversal, the finding is usually held binding on this Court while
hearing the appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is
only when such finding is found to be against any provision of law
or evidence or is found to be wholly perverse to the extent that
no average judicial person could ever record such finding, it would
not be held binding on the superior Court.[Paras 17-19][81-E-G]
1.4 The question as to what is the status of a “workman”, it
has to be inferred as a matter of law from facts found and if the
NATIONAL KAMGAR UNION v. KRAN RADER PVT. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
76
SUPREME COURT REPOR

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.