MITRA S.P. (P) LTD Vs. DHIREN KUMAR
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Mitra S.P. (P) Ltd
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court in
Writ Appeal Nos. 615/2021 and 617/2017 in respective
Writ Petition Nos. 2955/2021 and 5271/2009, the
Management has preferred the present appeals.
(2.) The respondent - workman was appointed as a Junior Supervisor with the company's branch at Visakhapatnam.
While he was working at Visakhapatnam, he was
transferred to Jharsuguda in State of Orissa vide order
dtd. 20/7/1997. The workman instead of joining at the
place of transfer submitted a representation to the Director
requesting for transfer to Mangalore in Karnataka State.
The same was not acceded to. Challenging the said order of
transfer, the workman filed O.S. No. 1602/1997. The Civil
Court did not grant any relief as prayed by the workman.
Thereafter, the workman was relieved by the branch office
at Visakhapatnam on 14/8/1997. Though the said
relieving order was received by the workman, he neither
handed over the charge at Visakhapatnam nor did he
report for duty at Jharsuguda office. Therefore, the
management treated him as deemed to have been relieved
w.e.f. 14/8/1997 from Visakhapatnam office. Thereafter,
the management issued a show cause notice dtd.
24/10/1997 to comply with the directions of transfer or else disciplinary action would be initiated against the workman.
Thereafter, the workman was placed under suspension.
Domestic enquiry was ordered. The enquiry proceeded exparte. Subsequently, the management dismissed the workman from service w.e.f. 15/9/1998. Aggrieved by the
dismissal order, the workman filed I.D. No. 219/1998
before the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide judgment
and award dtd. 23/10/2000 modified the order of
dismissal with stoppage of one increment with cumulative
effect and ordered for reinstatement of the workman into
service, with a direction to the workman to join at the place
of his transfer i.e., at Jharsuguda within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which,
he shall not be entitled to the reinstatement. The Labour
Court also further directed that the management shall
consider the request of the workman for retransfer to
Visakhapatnam or Mangalore after the workman joins at
his new station and that if the workman fails to report for
duty at Jharsuguda within one month he shall not be
entitled to back wages or continuity of service. The
management filed W.P. No. 2955/2001 before the learned
Single Judge of the High Court. On 22/2/2001 while
admitting the writ petition, the learned Single Judge
granted interim suspension of the order of the Labour
Court. Subsequently, learned Single Judge modified the
said interim order granting interim stay subject to the
condition of the management complying with Sec. 17 B
of the Industrial Disputes Act.
2.1 It is the case on behalf of the workman that thereafter he reported at Jharsuguda but he was not permitted to join on the ground that no instructions were received from the head office. Therefore, the workman filed an application under Sec. 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "ID Act") before the Labour Court for recovery of wages from 1/1/1998 to 30/4/2005. The said application under Sec. 33(C)(2) of the ID Act came to be dismissed by the Labour Court on the ground that the workman did not go to Jharsuguda to join duty. Aggrieved by the same, the workman filed W.P. No. 5271/2009. Both the writ petitions, one, filed by the management against the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court and another, filed by the workman challenging the order passed by the Labour Court dismissing the application under Sec. 33(C)(2) were heard together. Before the learned Single Judge for the first time the management raised the issue with respect to territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the management by observing that the management shall not be permitted to raise the issue with respect to territorial jurisdiction for the first time before the High Court. At the same time, without any further discussion on merits on the order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the application under Sec. 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, the learned Single Judge allowed Writ Petition No. 5271/2009 preferred by the workman and set aside the order of the Labour Court rejecting the application under Sec. 33(C)(2) of the ID Act - M.P. No. 43/2005 dtd. 16/12/2008. The learned Single Judge observed and held that the workman is entitled for all the benefits in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal in I.D. No. 219 of 1998 with all consequential benefits.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 2955/2001 and 5271/2009, the management preferred writ appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. By the common impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the appeals as not maintainable by observing and holding that the writ petitions were under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the writ appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court would not be maintainable. Hence, the present appeals.
(3.) We have heard Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) and Mr. K.
Parameshwar, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.