Industrial Disputes Act, 1947– Chapter VB – s.25K – Applicability of – Closure of manufacturing unit by factory owner – Issuance of closure notice by the owner – Complaint by appellantUnion against the factory owner – Industrial Court held the closure illegal since 115 workers were found working at the relevant time and s.25K was not complied with while effecting the closure of the unit – However, High Court held that 99 workers were found working in the Unit at the relevant time, thus, compliance of s.25K while declaring the closure not required – Interference with – Held: Reasoning assigned by the High Court is just and reasonable, thus, does not call for interference – Total strength of workers employed at the relevant time in Unit was 99 and that the status of 16 disputed employees could not be conclusively proved to be that of a “workman” – Appellant in order to prove the status of 16 employees, did not adduce any cogent evidence as against the evidence of the factory owner, thus, it was not possible for this Court to hold that the finding of the High Court is wholly arbitrary or illegal or against the evidence – Since the strength of workers was below 100, it was not necessary for the factory owner to ensure compliance of Chapter VB – s.25-K had no application to respondent No.1 – Thus, it is just and proper to award in lump sum a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to each worker who did not accept the compensation, after making proper verification – Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 – s.28 – Sch. IV Items 9, 10.
Constitution of India – Art. 136 – Appeal under – Question of fact – Held: Is to be decided by the Courts on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties – Once the Courts record a finding on such question, be that of concurrence or reversal, the finding is usually held binding on this Court – Only when such finding is found to be against any provision of law or evidence or is perverse, it would not be held binding on the superior Court – Even if the question raised is one of the mixed question of fact and law, this Court would not readily interfere with the conclusion unless it is manifestly or obviously erroneous.
Art. 227 – Supervisory jurisdiction – Exercise of – When – Held: While recording a finding, if it is noticed by the High Court that the subordinate Court has failed to take into consideration the material evidence or recorded a finding without there being any evidence, then the High Court would be entitled to interfere in such finding in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction u/Art. 227.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There is no good ground to interfere in the impugned judgment of the High Court. The reasoning assigned by the High Court appears to be just and reasonable calling no interference. [Para 13][81-A]
1.2 If the strength of the workers was above 100 at the relevant time, in that event, the provisions of Section 25-K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were applicable to respondent No.1 whereas if the strength was below 100, in such event, the provisions of Section 25K had no application. In the case of former, the appellant-Union succeeds and in the case of later, respondent No.1 succeeds. [Para 15][81-C-D]
1.3 The question as to what is the total strength of the workers employed in the Unit or, in other words, how many workers were working in a particular unit is essentially a question of fact. Such question is required to be decided by the Courts on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. Once the Courts record a finding on such question, be that of concurrence or reversal, the finding is usually held binding on this Court while hearing the appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is only when such finding is found to be against any provision of law or evidence or is found to be wholly perverse to the extent that no average judicial person could ever record such finding, it would not be held binding on the superior Court.[Paras 17-19][81-E-G]
1.4 The question as to what is the status of a “workman”, it has to be inferred as a matter of law from facts found and if the question involved is one of drawing a legal inference as to the status of a party from facts found, it is not a pure question of fact. It is held that if the inference drawn by the tribunal in regard to the status of the workman involved the application of certain legal tests, it necessarily becomes a mixed question of fact and law. Even if the question raised is one of the mixed question of fact and law, this Court would not readily interfere with the conclusion of the tribunal unless it is satisfied that said conclusion is manifestly or obviously erroneous. [Paras 20, 21][81-H; 82-A-B] Lloyds Bank Ltd. New Delhi v. Panna Lal Gupta AIR 1967 SC 428 – referred to.
1.5 Having perused the record, there is no inclination to interfere in the finding recorded by the High Court though of reversal. The High Court held that the total strength of workers employed at the relevant time in respondent No.1’s Unit was 99 and that the status of 16 disputed employees could not be conclusively proved to be that of a “workman” for the reasons stated. First, the High Court assigned the reasons as to why the finding of the Industrial Court holding the strength of workers as
115 is not factually and legally sustainable. Second, the reasons assigned are neither arbitrary nor against the record and nor perverse to that event so as to call for any interference by this Court. Third, in these circumstances, this Court would be slow to appreciate the entire evidence afresh on this question and lastly, such being a question of fact or a mixed question of law and fact, it is binding on this Court.[Paras 23, 24][82-D-F]
1.6 Having gone through the evidence, it is found that the High Court did not commit any jurisdictional error in reaching to its conclusion. The Industrial Court held that there was no dispute regarding the status of 79 workers. The dispute of status of an employee was confined only to 36 employees, namely, whether their status was that of the “worker” or “supervisor”. The Industrial Court, however, held that the status of all the 36 employees was that of “worker” and accordingly recorded a finding that 79+36 = 115 employees were working as “worker” in the Unit at the relevant time. [Para 25][82-G-H]
1.7 The High Court, however, while reversing the finding of the Industrial Court came to a conclusion that out of 36 employees, only 20 employees could be regarded as “worker” and, therefore, the total strength of workers at all relevant time was 79+20 = 99. The High Court rightly held that there was no cogent evidence adduced by the appellant to prove the status of remaining 16 employees as to whether they also could be regarded as “worker” employed in the Unit and, therefore, it was not possible to hold that the total strength of the workers at the relevant time was more than 100, i.e., 115. While concurring with the reasoning of the High Court, it is found that since the Industrial Court did not elaborately discuss the issue regarding the status of 16 employees while holding the strength of workers at 115 except clubbing 36(20+16) with 79, the High Court was right in going into the evidence to the extent permissible and reversed the finding of Industrial Court. The Industrial Court should have examined the status of each such disputed employee independently for holding whether they could also be regarded as “worker”. It was, however, not done so. The appellant, in order to prove the status of 16 employees, did not adduce any cogent evidence as against the evidence of the respondent No.1. It is, therefore, not possible for this Court to hold that the finding of the High Court is wholly arbitrary or illegal or against the evidence. [Paras 26, 27 and 29][83-C-D, G]
1.8 It is the duty of the High Court while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction to see that the subordinate Court has exercised its powers in accordance with law and did not commit any illegality or perversity in reaching to its conclusion. While recording a finding, if it is noticed by the High Court that the subordinate Court has failed to take into consideration the material evidence or recorded a finding without there being any evidence, then the High Court would be entitled to interfere in such finding in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Such is the case here. It is not proper to disturb the findings recorded by the High Court which are more plausible and reasonable rather than that of the Industrial Court. [Paras 31-33][84-A-C]
1.9 Respondent No.1 had employed 99 workers in their manufacturing Unit at the time of declaring the closure of the Unit. Since the strength of workers was below 100, it was not necessary for respondent No.1 to ensure compliance of Chapter VB. In such circumstances, the provisions of Section 25-K had no application to respondent No.1. [Para 34][84-D-E]
1.10 Taking into consideration the background facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to award in lump sum a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to each worker who did not accept the compensation, after making proper verification. If any worker is not available for any reason, the amount payable to such worker be paid to his legal representatives or nearest relatives, as the case may be. [Paras 38-39][85-B-C]
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.