STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR versus OM PRAKASH SHARMA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 701 · Decided: 12-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR 
v. 
OM PRAKASH SHARMA 
MAY 12, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
Labour Court-Award given beyond terms of reference-Effect a/-
Termination of services of workman and employment of another person in 
his place-Reference made to Labour Court on issue of violation of s. 25-
H-Labour Court holding that there was no violation of s.25-H, but r. 77 
was found to have been violated-Reinstatement ordered-Held, award of 
Labour Court suffers from illegality-Jn case of violation of r. 77 on the part 
of Management, it could have been subjected to penalty as provided in r. 79 
but it would not entitle the workman to be reinstated-Industrial Dispute 
Rules-rr. 77 and 79. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Articles 226 and 227-Jurisdiction under-Award of Labour Court 
E 
going beyond terms of reference-Held, while passing the award if Labour 
Court exceeds its jurisdiction, the award must /;Je held to be suffering from 
jurisdictional error and is liable to be corrected by High Court in exercise 
of its power of judicial review-High Court erred in refusing to exercise its 
jurisdiction. 
Respondent worked as a casual worker in appellant-Bank for 
about three and a half months. Thereafter his services were terminated 
F 
and another person was appointed in his place. This led to an industrial 
dispute and the appropriate Government made a reference to the 
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the 
G 
specific issue relating to violation of s.25-H of the Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947. The Labour Court though recorded a finding that the 
workman failed to prove that after termination of his services, 
employment in his place of another person was in violation of s. 25-H, 
but held that employer having not maintained the seniority was found 
H 
701 
702 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A to have violated r. 77 of the Industrial Disputes Rules; and therefore, the 
workman was entitled to be reinstated with 50% of back wages. The 
employer challenged the order before the High Court which declined 
to exercise its jurisdiction. Aggrieved, the employer filed the present 
appeal. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The Industrial Court, it is well settled, derives its 
jurisdiction from the reference. The specific issue which was referred 
for determination by the Labour Court related to the dispute as regards 
C violation of s.25H of the Act. If the said provisions had not been found 
to be violated, the question of setting aside the order of termination by 
the Labour Court did not and could not arise. It could not have passed 
the order going beyond the terms of reference. Non-maintenance of any 
register in terms of r. 77 of the Industrial Disputes Rules was not in issue. 
D However, r.79 provides for imposition of penalty on the employer for 
failure in complying with r.77. The award of the Labour Court suffers 
from an illegality which appears on the face of the record. 
(704-H, 705-A-B, 706-D, 707-AJ 
Mukand ltd. v. Mukand Staff & Officers' Association, (2004) 10 SCC 
E 
460, relied on. 
1.2. The Single Judge proceeded on the premise that the High 
Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot sit in appeal over the 
award of the Labour Court. But then only because the jurisdiction of the 
F 
High Court while exercising its power of judicial review was limited, it 
would not mean that even a jurisdictional error could not have been 
corrected. While passing the award, if the Labour Court exceeds its 
jurisdiction, the award must be held to be suffering from a jurisdictional 
error. It was liable to be corrected by the High Court in exercise of its 
G 
power of judicial review. The High Court, therefore, clearly fell in error 
in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction. The award and the judgment of 
the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. The award is set aside to 
the extent of order of reinstatement with back wages.(706-E, 707-A-B) 
Sadhna lodh v. National Insurance Co. ltd., (200313 SCC 524, relied 
H on. 
STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR v. O.P. SHARMA [SINHA, J.] 
703 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2636 of 
2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.6.2004 of High Court of 
Judicature for Rajashtan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal 
(Writ) No. 368 of 2004. 
M.N. Krishnamani, Anil Kumar Sangal, N. Sangal and Deba P. 
Mohanti him for the Appellant.

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