LexRAMESH CHANDRA SANKLA ETC. versus VIKRAM CEMENT ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2008) 10 S.C.R. 243 ). RAMESH CHAND~A SANKLA ETC. A V. VIKRAM CEMENT ETC. (Civil Appeal No. 4223 of 2008) JULY 08, 2008 B ' )., J [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalya (Khand Nyayapeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005 - SS.2(1) & 31:Voluntary Retir~- ment Scheme - Opted by employees - Benefit allegedly paid c by Company - Some employees approaching Labour Court for reinstatement on ground that they did not opt voluntarily for retirement under the scheme - Labour Court directing Company to file written statement to decide the case on mer- its - Challenge to - Dismissed by Industrial Tribunal - Com- D --( pany praying Labour Court to frame certain additional issues and hear them as preliminary issues - Additional issues framed by Labour Court It, however held. Holding that it was not appropriate to decide the issues as preliminary issues - Rejected by the Tribunal- Challenge to - Dismissed by Single E Judge of High Court- Special Leave Petition - Dismissed by Supreme Court in view of enactment of 2005 Act providing for filing of intra court appeal - Filing of intra Court appeal by the i Company- Division Bench of High Court held that intra court appeals not maintainable and directed employees in ques- .~ ~ tion to return benefit received by them to Company - Appeal F filed by employees and cross appeal filed by Company- Held: since order passed by Single Judge of High Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Consti- tution, intra Court appeal would not be competent- It is settled law that all issues arising in a suit/proceeding should be tried G together, hence Court below have not committed any error of " 'f jurisdiction in not deciding the issue as to maintainability of petition as preliminary issue - Even in terms of amendment made in CPC all the issues in a suit should be decided to- 243 H 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. >... A gether - Petition pending before the Labour Court - Present proceedings are against interlocutory orders - Under the cir- cumstances Supreme Court refrained from entering into a/le- gations and counter a/legation - No infirmity found in the or- der of the Division Bench of the High Court - Hence, con- /- B firmed - Labour Court directed to consider the matter on mer- ~ ,, its - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles, 136, 226 and 227 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with amending Act, 1976 - Service Law - Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Withdrawal of writ petition and filing of fresh petitions by >- c Company - Effect of Held: Though in such cases, courts not allowing the petitioner to reagitate the claim which was given up by him earlier - However, in the instant case a composite f .. petition filed against several employees was withdrawn and F separate petitions were filed by the company as per direction D of the Registry of the High Court - Moreover, another petition ).- filed against an employee on the same issue was alive and not withdrawn - It shows that there was no intention of the Com- pany to give up the matter E Jurisdictional fact - Meaning of - Discussed. ,, Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution - Discussed. Jurisdiction of Supreme Court - Article 136 - Scope of p " - Discussed. r- "• F Respondent-Company introduced a Voluntary Re- tirement Scheme for its employees. The employees who opted for voluntary retirement under the scheme have been granted all the benefits by the Company under the G scheme and also made payment against stamped re- ceipts. However, some of the employees approached Labour Court by invoking s.31 of the Madhya Pradesh • -.<_' Industrial Relation Act, 1960 on the grounds they had not opted for voiun- \.- H tary retirement but they were forced to accept some .,_ RAMESH CHANDRA SANKLA ETC. v. VIKRAM 245 CEMENT ETC. amount. The Labour Court directed the Company to file A written statement to decide the case on merits. The or- der was challenged by the Company before the Indus- trial Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the petition. The Company then filed written statement before the Labour Court requesting it to frame certain additional issues and B to hear them as preliminary issues. Though the Labour Court framed the issues, it dismissed the prayer to de- cide the issues as preliminary issues without recording evidence. Against the order of the Labour Court, the Com- pany approached
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.