SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY,J. - (1.) These writ petitions were earlier decided by a common judgment and order dated 24.2.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court whereby the matters were remanded back to Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication.
(2.) Being aggrieved, the Supervisors Association preferred Special Leave Petition No.1206-1208 of 2017 (Civil Appeal No(s) 9382-9384 of 2017) before the Hon'ble Supereme Court which were decided on 23.2.2018 with the request to the High Court to heard the writ petitions on merit. The relevant part of the order is reproduced hereinafter :- . "The only dispute remaining to be decided is whether the Supervisors/Deputy Superintendents would be workmen or not. There are already two conflicting views of the Labour Courts. In the above circumstances, we do not find any justification for the High Court remitting the matter again to the Labour Court on the issue. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. We direct the High Court to decide the issue finally in the true spirit of the order dated 14.9.2010, as explained by us above on the basis of the materials available on record.
(3.) The facts in brief which are necessary to decide the issue involved in all these writ petitions are as follows :- (a) The petitioner - Duncan Industries Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act, having its factory at Kanpur, which manufactures fertilizers commonly known as UREA. The company has different categories of employees comprising of Management staff, Deputy Superintendents/Supervisors and workman. In the year 1978, the age of retirement of workman of the petitioner-company was raised to 60 years subject to their being medically fit, in pursuance of settlement/agreement dated 7.2.1978 entered between the Management and the Union of Workman. As per the case of the petitioner-company, the said settlement/agreement was not made applicable to Supervisors/Deputy Superintendents of the company on the ground that they were not workman. (b) The Management of the company took decisions on various issues after meeting with the representatives of IEL Supervisors Association, Kanpur on 28.5.1985 including the decision regarding the retirement age of the Supervisor which remained unaltered at 58 years. (c) The IEL, Supervisors' Association claimed that their age of superannuation should be fixed as 60 years as done in the case of workman and raised a industrial dispute which finally referred under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1947') to the Industrial Tribunal (III) U.P. Kanpur and was registered as Adjudication Case no.11 of 1988. The term of the reference of the said industrial dispute was as follows :- "Kya Sevajojakon Dwara Apne Pratishthan Ke Sabhi Deputy Superintendents Evam Supervisors Ki Seva Nivriti Aayu 58 Varsha Ke Sthan Par Shramikon Ki Bhanti 60 Varsha Na Karna Uchit Tatha Vaidhanik Hai ? Yadi Nahin to Sambhandhit Shramik Kya Laabh/Anutosh Relief Pane Ke Adhikari Hai Tatha Anya Kis Vivran Sahit ?" (d) The industrial dispute was contested by the rival parties and written statements, rejoinder affidavits were also exchanged. Statements of witnesses of both side were recorded and they were cross-examined also. The Industrial Tribunal after considering the material and submissions, passed an award dated 29.4.1999, whereby it was held that the Deputy Superintendents/Supervisors are also entitled for increase of their retirement age from 58 years to 60 years as done in the case of workman. (e) The Industrial Tribunal (III) sent the award for the publication on 30.7.1999 to the State, however the same was recalled by the Tribunal before publication and the matter was posted for re-hearing. (f) Being aggrieved, the IEL Supervisory has filed Writ Petition No.39403 of 1999 with the prayer for publication of the award dated 23.4.1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Apparently, no interim order was passed by this Court in the said writ petition. (g) The Industrial Tribunal again heard the parties and passed the fresh award and sent the same for publication on 16.6.2000 to the State Government. (h) The IEL Supervisor Association again approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.32788 of 2000 with the prayer for restraining the State Government from publishing the fresh award dated 16.6.2000. Apparently, no interim order was granted by this Court in the said writ petition also. (i) The State Government instead of publishing the award sent for publication on 16.6.2000, referred the same dispute which was earlier registered as Adjudication No.11 of 1988 in Industrial Tribunal (VIII) Lucknow, vide order dated 30.9.2000. (j) The Duncan Industries Ltd. being aggrieved by the order dated 30.9.2000 preferred Writ Petition No.44848 of 2000 before this Court wherein the following order was passed on 18.10.2000. "Heard Sri J.N. Tewari, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.Chatterjee learned counsel for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the State Government has made a second reference in the Industrial Disputes Act. The Original reference was made on 14th March, 1998 which gave rise to I.D. case No.11 of 1998. In this case the evidence of the parties was recorded and the award was prepared. The award was not a convenient approach and made a second reference on the same term and condition on 30.9.2000. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the State Government was not empowered to make second reference and to withdraw the award made earlier. The matter requires scrutiny. Issue notice to respondent no.4 who may file counter affidavit within six weeks. The learned standing counsel may also file counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.1, 2 and 3 within the same period. List thereafter. In the meantime further proceedings pursuant to the reference dated 30.9.2000 shall remain stayed." (k) I.E.L. Supervisor also challenged the reference order dated 30.9.2000 by way of filing Writ Petition No.53016 of 2000. (l) Meanwhile, the State Government published the award dated 29.4.1999 passed in Adjudication Case No.11/1988 which was sent for publication on 30.7.1999 on 7.1.2002 whereby Supervisors were also held to be workmen. The Duncan industries then approached this Court by way of filing another Writ Petition No.12468 of 2002. During the pendency of above-mentioned writ petitions, the Industrial Tribunal (I) U.P. at Allahabad in another Adjudication Case No.32 of 2001 wherein the industrial dispute 'whether the concerned employee of the Duncan Industries who was employed in the capacity of a Supervisor, was a workman or not, and if so then, whether denial of increment of Rs. 10,000/- to him was justified and legal and if not, then whether the workman was entitled to the said relief' was referred, held that the employee was a workman and he was not discharging managerial functions and held that Supervisor was entitled to receive increment. The said award dated 21.5.2005 is under challenge in Writ Petition No.16447 of 2006 by the Duncans Industries. (m) Earlier the Labour Court (IV), U.P. Kanpur in Industrial Dispute No.146/1991 between the Management and IEL Supervisor Associations has passed award dated 26.9.1996 wherein it was held that Deputy Superintendent working in the Duncan Industries are not liable for increment as they are not workmen. The said award was also challenged by individuals in Writ C No.37147 of 1996. (n) A Single Bench of this Court decided the Writ Petition No.39403 of 1999, 32788 of 2000, 4484 of 2000 and 53016 of 2000, vide order dated 7.9.2004, wherein it was held that employer could not placed on record any fact which might authorize the Supervisor to do managerial and supervisory functions. In the other writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.37147 of 1996 wherein the petitioners therein have challenged the finding that they were not declared workmen was however dismissed. (o) The above-mentioned orders dated 7.9.2004 and 22.7.2010 were challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of filing Civil Appeal Nos.351-355 of 2006 and Civil Appeal No.8023 of 2010, which were allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14.9.2000 and the matter was remanded back to High Court for fresh consideration. The relevant part of the order is quoted here-in-below :- "In the circumstances, therefore, and keeping in view the fact that the Labour Court has taken two different views in the two references made to it as regards the status of Supervisors and Deputy Superintendents, we are of the view that the matters need to be remanded back to the High Court to enable both the sides to argue the matter afresh and also the High Court to examine the issues that arise for determination. We, accordingly, allow these appeals, set aside both the impugned orders and remit the matters back to the High Court for a fresh disposal in accordance with law." (p) After remand, above-mentioned writ petitions were finally decided by this Court vide order dated 24.2.2016 whereby the adjudication cases were remanded back to the Tribunal to decide afresh two different views were taken regarding the working of Supervisor and Deputy Superintendent. One being declaring Supervisor/Deputy Superintendent as workman and other being not a workmen by the Labour Tribunal. The operative part of the order dated 24.2.2016 is quoted hereinafter :- "Writ Petition No.44848 of 2000 was dismissed earlier by judgment and order dated 17 September 2004. Learned Counsel for the parties have not made any submissions. Thus, for all the reasons stated in the judgment and order dated 17 September 2004, Writ Petition No.44848 of 2000 is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Writ Petition No.12468 of 2002, Writ Petition No.37147 of 1996 and Writ Petition No.16447 of 2006 are disposed of. The Tribunal concerned shall now proceed to hear the adjudication cases bearing Adjudication Case No.11 of 1998, Adjudication Case No.146 of 1991 and Adjudication Case No.32 of 2001 afresh. It shall, however, be open to the parties to bring on record the subsequent facts that may have taken place. This should be done within one month. The Tribunal concerned shall proceed to make the award(s) expeditiously and within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before the Tribunal by either of the parties. Writ Petition No.39403 of 1999 and Writ Petition 32788 of 2000 are dismissed as having become in-fructuous. Learned counsel for the parties also did not make submissions in Writ Petition No.53016 of 2000. The said writ petition was earlier allowed by judgment and order dated 17 September 2004 and the reference order dated 30 September 2000 was quashed. This petition, therefore, stands allowed for the reasons contained in the judgment and order dated 17 September 2004." ;