THE MANAGEMENT OF ORIENTAL MERCANTILE AGENCY versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER & ORS.

Citation: [1973] 2 S.C.R. 932 · Decided: 10-11-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

932 
THE MANAGEMENT OF ORIENTAL MERCANTILE 
A 
AGENCY 
v. 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER & ORS. 
November IO, 1972 
(H. R. :(HANNA AND Y. V. CHANDRACliUD, JJ.J 
Industrial 
Disputes Act-Dispute referred to Labour Court-High 
Court remitted back the case to Labour Court for fresh disposal-The 
meaning of 'fresh dispo,ar. 
Tue appellants retrenched 6 of their workmen and the dispute was 
referred to the LaLour Court· for adjudication. Tue Labour Court by its 
Award held that the non-employment of the worknwn was justified and 
no relief was graated to the w0rkmen. Against this award, the workmen 
filed a Writ Petition (No. 209 of 1964) and the learned single Judge of 
the High Court s.et aside the Award of the Labour Court, and held that 
the non-employment of tile workmen 
was unjustified. 
He remitted the 
matter for 'fresh disposal'. The appellants appealed against the said order 
by Writ Appeal No. 113 of 1967, before a Division Bench of the said High 
Court. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal ex·parte with the obser-
vation 
that the judgment of the learned single Judge 
amounted 
to a quashing of the Award, and release of the proceedings for fresh and 
proper determination by the Lahour Court, for carefully ascertaining rhe 
'facts and applying the true principles of Industrial Law applicable to such 
cases of retrenchment'". 
The matter, therefore, went back to the Labour 
Court for 'fresh disposal'; but when the appcllanis attempted to reagitatc 
the matters in controversy, the \VOrkmen objected. 
While the matter was pending before the Labour Court, the work-
men moved a petition (CMP No. 7125/67), seeking clarification of the 
judgment of the leacned single Judge, 
who by his orc~er clarified 
his 
earlier judgment by saying 
that he had remitted 
the matter to the 
Labour Court only for the purpose of determining what relief could be 
given to the retrenched employees and that the Labour Court could not 
reopen the matter afresh. The attention of the learned JuJge was drawn 
to the observation made hy the Division Bench 
of the High Court, but 
he took the view that the appeal having been dismissed by the Division 
Bench, his orig_inal judgment stood and that the management might, 
if it so chose, file a review appliet1tion before the Division Bench. 
Accordingly, the appellants filed an application for review of the order 
passed by the Division Bench. The Bench dismissed the revision petition 
with the observation that the learned single Judge 
had not expressed 
any final conclusion. Further, the order JY.lSSed by the Division Bench 
was prima facie in favour of the employer-organisation. 
Therefore.-
the 
employer-organisacion could not ask for a review of the order favourable 
to them. 
Thereafter, the Labour Court, by its Award dated May 25, 1968, held 
that the retrenchment of the workmen was justified and observed that the 
powers of the High Court in hearing writ petition 
are limited, only to 
remitting a case for Labour Court for fresh disposal in its entirety and 
that observations to the contrary are mainly obite dicta. 
Further, follow-
ing the Appellate Court's observations, the whole matter was at large. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
c 
D 
£ 
F 
G 
H 
ORIENTAL MERCANTIL:. AGENCY, V. PRESIDING OFFICER 
933 
( Ch11ndrachud, I.) 
Against this Award, the workmen filed another writ petition (No. 123· 
of 1969) and a Division Bench quashed the award of the Labour, Court 
and remitted the matter with the direction that it ought not go into the 
merits of the case. but dispose of the matter only in respect of proper 
rclie'fs to be given to the petitioner. The learned Judges took the view 
!hat the workmen were not bound bv the ex-parte observations made by 
the division bench earlier and that the order of th.e l011rned single judge 
must be treated as final and therefore, the Labour Court was bound to 
give effect to that order. The correctness of this judgment was challenged 
before this Court. 
HELD : (i) The order of the Division Bench passed in Writ appeal 
No. 113 of 1967 is set aside as being in violation of the principles of 
natural justice. This order cannot bind the workmen as it \vas passed 
ex-parte. [937 Ej 
(ii) The clarification 
order passed by the learned •ingle Judge 
in 
C.M.P. No. 7125 of 1967, in face of the appellate order is wrong. The 
learned judge had no jurisdiction to issue a clarification which was in-
consistent with the view taken by the appellate Court. The appellate order 
was 

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