WORKMEN OF ENGLISH ELECTRIC COMPANY OF INDIA LTD., MADRAS versus PRESIDING OFFICER & ANR.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 13 · Decided: 11-01-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

WORKMEN OF ENGLISH ELECTRIC COMPANY OF INDIA A 
LTD., MADRAS 
v. 
PRESIDING OFFICER & ANR. 
JANUARY 11, 1990. 
B 
[RANGANATH MISRA, P.B. SAWANT AND K. 
RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
'-
Industrial Disputes ACt, 1947: Section 10( 1)( d)-Non-employ-
ment of workmen-Justification of-Findings of facts-Quantum of 
evidence or appreciation thereof-Whether High Court could interfere C 
under writ jurisdiction. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226-Findings of facts-
Quantum of evidence or appreciation thereof-Whether could be 
interfered. 
Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the State Government 
referred to the Industrial Tribunal the question whether the non· 
employment of certain workmen in the appellant-Company was 
justified, and if not what was the relief to which they were entitled. The 
employer and the workmen filed their respective statements before the 
Tribunal and the workmen sought an amendment which the Tribunal 
allowed. The employer challenged the amendment by way of a writ 
petition before the High Court. The High Court took the view that the 
amendment could be assailed while challenging the award itself. 
D 
E 
The award was made and the employer assailed the same in a writ 
petition filed before the High Court. The High Court confined the relief F 
to 131 casual employees who have worked for more than 240 days and 
set aside the award in respect of 50 others since they did not complete 
240 days of service. Aggrieved, both the employer and the workmen 
filed appeals before the Division Bench. The Division Bench found that 
until the amendment was made, the workmen had a different claim 
from what was ultimately pressed before the Tribunal, that there was 
G 
great variation in the number of workmen for whom relief was claimed, 
and came to the conclusion that it was not proved that the employer 
terminated the services of any of the casual workers. Thus, the appeal 
of the employer was allowed and that of the workmen dismissed. 
Aggrieved, the workmen have filed these appeals by Special Leave. 
13 
H 
A 
14 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990) I S.C.R. 
Allowing the appeals in part, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The stand taken by the Union that work had not been 
provided on tt l0.1980 was wrong hi view of ihe fad that Ii substantial 
number of casual workmen out of the 186 had really worked on the 13th 
and the two following days. The Union had mixed up its claltn of con-
B firmation with stoppage of work leading to retrenchment. The Union 
obviously realised its mistake when the Company filed its counter-
statehtent making a difidlle assertion that bulk of the workmen had 
worked tm 13th, 14th and 15th of October, 1980. The Tribunal did 
eiuimine the question ot confirmation on the baslS iii" days of work pui in 
by tilt \Wrkfueil. it found that 131 periions out or tlie 186 worked for 
240 days. The liuliiber oi' 186 was reduced to 181 on account of dupllca-
C tion or death. The remaining 50, according to the Tribunal, had not 
compiete'd 240 days of work and were, therefore, not entitled to 
confirniatfoli, [ !8C-D I 
2. While it is a fact that the workmen had made tall claims which 
D they hiid failed to substantiate, it was for the Tribunal and the High 
Court to appreciate the material on record and decide as lo \Vh!Ch piii-t 
of the dairil was teliable. The finding of the Tribunal that 131 workmen 
bad put In litore than 240 diiys of work was arrived at on the basis of 
some evidence; it may be that better particulars and clear evidence 
should have been placed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rightly gave 
E the relier oil the basis that Section 25F of the lndusfrlai Disputes AC! 
had not been complied with. [ISE-HJ 
3. The claltn of confirmation of 131 workmen as found by the 
Tribunal and upheld by the Single Judge of the High Court shall be 
restored. Relief of back wages In the facts and circumstances would, 
F 
however, not be granted except to the extent it has been covered 1Jy two 
interim orders of this Court dated 14.2.1986 and 5.5.1988. ~uch pay-
ments as have been made shall not be recovered. [19B-C) 
4. Quantum of evidence of appreciation thereof for recording 
findings of fact would not come within the purview of High Court's 
G extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. [18G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 
~~~cl~. 
~
From the Judgment and Cirder dated 19.12.1985 of the Madras 
H High Court in W.A. No. 1235/83 & W.A. No. 72of 1984. 
WORKMEN v. PRESIDING OFFIC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.