Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
s. 6-N – Termination of workman – Industrial reference – Industrial Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the workman and directed his reinstatement with back wages – In Writ petition, award of the Tribunal set aside – However, High Court directed that whatever amount, paid to the workman in compliance with order passed u/s. 17-B proceedings, during pendency of litigation, shall not be recovered – Review petition dismissed – On appeal, held: High Court rightly concluded that the workman did not work continuously for one year – Such finding of fact is binding on Supreme Court and cannot be examined de novo in appellate jurisdiction u/Art. 136 of Constitution – High Court also rightly held that amount paid to the workman pursuant to order passed u/s. 17-B of ID Act was not recoverable – Constitution of India – Art. 136 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s. 17-B.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The main question, which arose for consideration before the Industrial Tribunal and the High Court, was whether the appellant (workman) was in continuous service for one year as provided under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. A finding on such question being a finding of fact, this Court cannot examine such question de novo by appreciating the whole evidence adduced by the parties again in the present appeals. The High Court examined the matter in detail and the finding of the High Court on this question being a finding of fact is binding on this Court. The High Court, rightly came to a conclusion that the workman did not work continuously for one year with the employer. [Paras 11, 13 and 16] [532-B-D, G-H]
2. This Court has held that the proceedings under Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are independent proceedings in nature and are not dependent upon the final order passed in the main proceedings. If the Court/Tribunal, eventually upholds the termination order as being legal against the workman, yet the employer will have no right to recover the amount already paid by him to the delinquent workman pursuant to order passed under Section 17-B of the ID Act during pendency of these proceedings. The High Court despite setting aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal, rightly directed that whatever amount, which has so far been paid to the workman by the employer in compliance with the order passed under Section 17-B of ID Act proceedings during pendency of the litigation, the same will not be recoverable from the appellant on the strength of the impugned order. Such direction issued by the High Court against the employer, is in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in that behalf. [Paras 19, 20, 21 and 22] [533-C-G] Sriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Mahak Singh & Ors. (2007) 4 SCC 94: [2007] 3 SCR 783
– distinguished.
Dena Bank v. Kirtikumar T. Patel (1999) 2 SCC 106: [1997] 5 Suppl. SCR 263; Dena Bank v. Ghanshyam (2001) 5 SCC 169 : [2001] 3 SCR 591; Rajeshwar Mahto v. Alok Kumar Gupta (2018) 4 SCC 341 :
[2018] 2 SCR 529 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.