Constitution of India – Art.226 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Appeal against common judgment of the High Court of Kerala dated 09.01.2018 – Appellant was directed to prepare a list of casual labourers from amongst the Respondent and consider their claims for regularization in terms of State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 – Respondents’ claimed before the High Court that they were working as casual labourers on contract basis with the appellant-Society for several years; engaged continuously for a period of 60 days and then on rotational basis; all of them were in continuous service for a period of over 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months; and ought to be treated as permanent workers under the provisions of ID Act; and that Appellant-Society is an organization covered under the provisions of the ID Act – Remedy under the ID Act not invoked by the Respondents – During pendency of conciliation proceedings before the District Labour, instead of seeking remedies under the ID Act, Respondents continued to press the writ petition filed by them – Respondents admittedly did not invoke the provisions of the ID Act after the conciliation proceedings had failed – Did not seek a reference of the dispute to the Competent authority – Submissions of the Appellant that Respondents were engaged purely on a casual basis; nominated from amongst the members of the Apex Cooperative Society and that Terms and conditions of the Circulars made it clear that the nominees would not have any right of permanent employment and further that none of the Respondents had worked for over 200 days in a calendar year and therefore not entitled to claim permanent employment. Held: 1. All questions fall in the realm of disputed questions of fact – Would have required evidence to be lead and proper adjudication before an appropriate authority which would have been a remedy under the ID Act- Disputed questions of facts go to the very root of the matter – Judgment dated 09th January, 2018 which is quashed and set aside – Liberty granted to the Respondents to seek their remedies under the ID Act – Respondents continuing in service under the appellant-Society shall not be disturbed for a period of six months to enable them to seek appropriate legal recourse under the ID Act. [Paras 12, 21-24]
2. Powers of judicial review can always be exercised by a writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but wherever there are disputed questions of facts that need adjudication, it is best left to the competent forum to adjudicate the same by examining the evidence brought on record before any findings can be returned- Writ is a discretionary remedy; High Court to refuse grant of any writ if the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable remedy elsewhere unless the party makes out a strong case that there exist convincing grounds to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction- When there is a hierarchy of appeals provided under the statute, a party ought to exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to approaching a writ court. [Paras 15, 17, 18]
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.