LexTRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUST. LTD. versus JASWANT SINGH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2010] 9 S.C.R. 822 TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUST. LTD. v. JASWANT SINGH & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 6523 of 2010) AUGUST 11, 2010 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Standing Orders: Clause 'W' - Jurisdiction and power of Labour Commissioner to decide on applicability and interpretation of Standing Orders - HELD: The inquiry before the Labour Commissioner is of a summary nature and while exercising 0 such power, he cannot decide and examine factual matters relating to an issue as to whether the person concerned is a workman or not - It is a matter to be de,cided by a competent court as it relates primarily to facts and circumstances of the case and is not ancillary to that of the applicability and E interpretation of the Standing Orders - The order of termination also could not have been examined and scrutinized as such power and jurisdiction is not vested with the Labour Commissioner- U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.11-C- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 F - s.13-A. Respondent no. 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of his transfer and the order terminating his services passed by the appellant- employer, as he did not join the duties on his transfer. G The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to respondent no. 1 to file a representation before the Labour Commissioner under Clause 'W' of the Standing Orders. On the representation so filed by respondent no. 1, the appellant contended that respondent no. 1 was not a H 822 TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUST. LTD. v. JASWANT 823 SINGH & ANR. workman and,· therefore, the Labour Commissioner had A no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the representation under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Commissioner accepting the plea of the appellant, rejected the representation of respondent no. 1. The writ petition filed by respondent no. 1 was dismissed by single B Judge of the High Court. However, the Division Bench allowed his special appeal and remitted the matter to Labour Commissioner to decide the nature of the service of respondent no. 1. In the instant appeal filed by the employer, the C question for consideration before the Court was: the issue whether respondent no. 1was a workman or not could be said to be related to the applicability and interpretation of the Standing Orders along with the issue of whether the orders of transfer of respondent no. 1 and D subsequent termination were justified or not. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The Labour Commissioner is only a 'Conciliation Officer' as envisaged under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and 'Certifying Officer' under the Standing Orders. The Stam ... 1g Orders, particularly, Clause 'W', vests the Labour Commissioner with the jurisdiction and power to decide on the applicability and interpretation of the Standing Orders. On the other hand, s. 11-C of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and s.13A E F of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 grant the power and jurisdiction to render a decision on ·the issue of interpretation and application of the Standing Orders to the Labour Court. A comparative perusal of the G provisions of s.11-C as also Clause 'W' would establish that the provisions are almost pari materia. Therefore, the conclusions arrived at by this Court for interpretation of s.11-C would also be applicable to the facts of the present case. [para 11 and 13] [830-E-G; 829-H; 830-A] H 824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 9 S.C.R. A 1.2 The issue of whether or not a person is a 'workman' within the meaning of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a matter to be decided by a competent court, after allowing the parties to lead evidence. Thereafter, on proper appreciation of the materials on record including B the oral evidence, a decision could be rendered and the issue could be determined. The enquiry before the Labour Commissioner is of a summary nature and while exercising such a power of summary nature, the Labour Commissioner cannot decide and examine factual C matters relating to an issue as to whether the person concerned is a workman or not. [para 14) [831-A-C) Sharad Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2002 (2) SCR 1057 = (2002) 4 SCC 490; and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. U.P. Rajya Sadad Parivahan D Karamchanri Union 2007(4) SCALE 302 - relied on. 1.3 Whether or not a person is a workman
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.