Supreme Court of India
SUNIL KUMAR BISWAS versus ORDINANCE FACTORY BOARD & ORS. on 29 March 2019
1046
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 1046
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
A
SUNIL KUMAR BISWAS
v.
ORDINANCE FACTORY BOARD & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.3290 of 2019)
B
MARCH 29, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.10 – Reference of disputesCto Boards, Courts or Tribunals – Appellant and respondent nos.4-6were working with Ordinance Factory Board (respondent no.1) for25 years – They claimed regularisation of their services – Pursuantthereto, they filed OA against respondent No.1-3 before the CAT,which was dismissed – Writ petition filed by them was also dismissed – On appeal, held: The remedy of the appellant and respondentDNos.4-6 lied in applying to the Central Government to make anindustrial reference to the Industrial Tribunal u/s.10 of the IndustrialDisputes Act in relation to the dispute which has arisen betweenthem and not to pursue their remedy for adjudication of theirgrievance by filing OA before the Tribunal or/and writ petition inEthe High Court – Service Law – Regularisation of service.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Having regard to the nature of the controversyraised by the appellant and respondent Nos.4-6, this Court is ofthe considered view that their remedy lies in getting their allegedFdispute settled by the Industrial Tribunal in a reference underSection 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . The reason is thatsuch disputes once made are required to be adjudicated on factsand the evidence. The factual controversy cannot be adjudicatedin OA by the Tribunal or by the High Court in a writ petition.G[Paras 10 and 11][1048-C-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.3290 of2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2015 of the High Courtat Calcutta in W.P.C.T. No. 82 of 2015H
Rajat Sharma, Subhasish Bhowmick, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adit Khorana (for Mukesh Kumar Maroria),Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and orderdated 16.07.2015 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in WPCT No.82of 2015 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by theappellant and respondent Nos.4-6 herein.
3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of theappeal, which involved a short point.
4. The appellant and respondent Nos.4-6 herein approached theCentral Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Calcutta against respondentNos.1-3 (Ordinance Factory Board & Ors.) in OA No. 159 of 2013praying therein for a relief that they have been appointed by the Contractorto render their services with the Ordinance Factory Board (respondentNo.1 herein) which they have been doing from the last 25 years, therefore,they claimed a relief that their services be regularized.
5. The Tribunal, by order dated 23.05.2013, dismissed the OAfiled by the appellant and respondent Nos.4-6 which gave rise to filing ofthe writ petition by them before the High Court at Calcutta.
6. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petitionand held that the remedy of the appellant and respondent Nos. 4-6 liesin approaching the Central Government in making a reference to theIndustrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947(hereinafter referred to as “ID Act”). It is against this dismissal ofthe writ petition, the unsuccessful writ petitioners felt aggrieved andhave filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
7. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in thisappeal, is whether the Tribunal and the High Court were justified indismissing the OA and writ petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we find no merit in this appeal.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
A9. In our opinion, the High Court was right in observing that theremedy of the appellant and respondent Nos.4-6 herein (writ petitioners)lies in applying to the Central Government to make an industrial referenceto the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the ID Act in relation tothe dispute which has arisen between them but not to pursue their remedyfor adjudication of their grievance by filing OA before the Tribunal or/Band writ petition in the High Court.
10. Having regard to the nature of the controversy raised by theappellant and respondent Nos.4-6, we are also of the considered viewthat their remedy lies in getting their alleged dispute settled by theIndustrial Tribunal in a reference under Section 10 of ID Act.
C
11. The reason is that such disputes once made are required to beadjudicated on facts and the evidence. The factual controversy cannotbe adjudicated in OA by the Tribunal or by the High Court in a writpetition.
12. We, therefore, find no good ground to take any other viewthan the one taken by the High Court while declining to entertain thewrit petition.
D
13. Needless to say, if the reference is eventually made to theIndustrial Tribunal at the instance of the appellant and respondent Nos.4-E6 by the Central Government on their request under Section 10 of the IDAct and issue in question is gone into on facts, the same shall then bedecided strictly in accordance with law by the Industrial Tribunaluninfluenced by any observations made by the Tribunal, the High Courtand this Court in these proceedings.
14. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.F
Ankit Gyan
Appeal dismissed.
G
H