PRIVATE LIMITED versus THE WORKMEN OF NARENDRA & COMPANY

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 597 · Decided: 04-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] l S.C.R. 597 
THE MANAGEMENT OF NARENDRA & COMPANY 
A 
PRIVATE LIMITED 
v. 
THE WORKMEN OF NARENDRA & COMPANY 
(Civil Appeal No.14 of2016) 
JANUARY 4, 2016 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON :FALi NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Labour Laws - Retrenchment - Labour Court directed 
reinstatement with 50% back wages from January 1995 till January 
1999 -
Single Judge of High Court upheld the award of 
reinstatement, but limited the award of back wages to January 1995 
in view of closure of the industry by the beginning of January 1995 
- In intra-court appeal, Division Bench held that due to closure of 
industry reinstatement was not possible - However, since it was not 
proved that the industry was not functional after January 1995, the 
workmen were held entitled to back wages till January I 999 - On 
appeal, held: It is proved that the industry was not functional after 
January 1995, hence payment of back wages beyond January 1995 
is not permissible - Order denying reinstatement is upheld. 
Appeal - Intra- Court appeal - Power of appellate court -
To interfere with the finding of fact - Held: The appellate court 
shall not disturb finding of fact, unless it reaches a conclusion that 
the finding on fact is perverse - There should not be interference 
merely because another view or better view is possible. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Once the Single Judge came to the conclusion 
that the industry was not functioning after January, 1995, there 
was no justification in entering a different finding without any 
further material before the Division Bench. The appellate Bench 
ought to have noticed that the statement of MW-3 was itself part 
of the evidence before the Labour Court. In an intra-court appeal, 
on a finding of fact, unless the appellate Bench reaches a 
conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it 
shall not disturb the same. Merely _because another view or a 
better view is possible, there should be no interference with or 
597 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
598 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] I S.C.R. 
A 
disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both 
sides agree for a fairer approach on relief. [para 4] [599-E-G] 
2. Appellant-Management has stated on oath that the 
industry became non-functional by the beginning of January, 1995 
and remained defunct thereafter. 
Respondent-workmen have 
B 
not been able to establish that the industry was functioning 
thereafter. Hence, the order for payment of back wages beyond 
January, 1995 is vacated, and in all the other aspects, the order 
passed by the Division Bench is retained. [paras 5-6] [600-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURJSDICT!ON: Civil Appeal No. 14 of 
c 
2016 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.01.2013 of the High Court 
of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 982 of 2008 (L-TER). 
K. K. Mani, T. Archna for the Appellant. 
Shubham Saxena, Rajiv Shukla, B. Ramana Murthy for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J.: I. Leave granted. 
2. Short question is whether the respondents-workmen are entitled 
to the back wages till the beginning of January, 1995 or till January, 
1999. The Labour Court, Bangalore by award dated 02.08.2002 directed 
reinstatement of the workmen with 50 per cent back wages. That award 
was challenged by the appellant before the High Court of Karnataka at 
Bangalore by judgment dated 14.03.2008 in Writ Petition No. 41489 of 
2002. Though the appellant attacked the award on several grounds, the 
learne:d Single Judge d~eclined to interfere with the award on 
reinstatement. However, taking note of the fact that the industry was 
virtually closed by the beginning of January, 1995, it was ordered that 
the award on back wages would be limited to January, 1995. The learned 
Single Judge, in fact, had entered a finding in that regard which reads as 
follows: 
"From the record it shows that the industry was functioning till 
the beginning of 1995 and the Union though has led the evidence 
but has not proved as to whether the industry was functioning 
thereafter or not." 
MANAGEMENT OF NARENDRA & CO. P. LTD. v. 
WORKMEN OF NARENDRA & COMPANY (KURIAN, J.] 
3. In appeal, the Division Bench took the view that apait from the 
sole evidence ofMW-3, there was no other evidence on record to prove 
that the industry was not functional after January, 1995. However, there 
was no dispute with regard to the fact that the industry was closed, and 
therefore, reinstatement wa

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