Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: If irregularity or illegality committed by a Tribunal touches upon the jurisdiction to try and determine over a subject dispute is altogether beyond its purview, that question would go to the root of the matter and it would be within the jurisdiction of the superior court to correct such error – In the facts of the present case, it is not the question of inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Tribunal – The question of jurisdiction, as held by the High Court, was a mixed question of fact and law – In the instant case, the settlement of 19th September, 2016 was a settlement essentially between the contractors and workmen engaged by the former – The appellants were only consenting parties to the settlement – The dispute related to the question as to whether the workmen engaged by the contractors would be entitled to pay at par with other workmen of the employer and demand to that effect was raised with the appellants only – The respondent Unions claimed to be, in reality, employees of ONGC and the demand was raised upon the latter, and not on their contractors – The nature of their demand was thus different particularly as regards the status of the workmen, i.e., their claim to be workmen of ONGC – Thus, the settlement of 19th September, 2016, in which the employers were the contractors cannot bind the subject-dispute, where the appellants have been found to be the employer on the basis of materials considered by the High Court – Engagement by the contractors cannot be the sole basis for determining status as workmen of contractors – The High Court rightly affirmed the findings of the Industrial Tribunal that the settlement of 19th September, 2016 did not bind the workmen whose cause the respondent Unions were espousing – The finding of the Tribunal that the settlement involving implementation of the Fair Wage Policy (FWP) was not just and fair, which finding has been sustained by the High Court, is essentially a finding on facts based on appreciation of evidence – Such finding not tainted by any element of perversity – The scope of jurisdiction of the Industrial Court is wide and in appropriate cases it has the jurisdiction even to make a contract – Directives issued by the Tribunal, as modified by the High Court are reasonable and cannot be termed as perverse.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1 If irregularity or illegality committed by a Tribunal touches upon the jurisdiction to try and determine over a subject dispute is altogether beyond its purview, that question would go to the root of the matter and it would be within the jurisdiction of the superior court to correct such error. In the facts of the present case, it is not the question of inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Tribunal. The question of jurisdiction, as held by the High Court, was a mixed question of fact and law. [Para 15][391E-G]
1.2 The dispute out of which the present appeal arises relates to the question as to whether the workmen engaged by the contractors would be entitled to pay at par with other workmen of the employer and demand to that effect was raised with the appellants only. The respondent Unions claimed to be, in reality, employees of ONGC and the demand was raised upon the latter, and not on their contractors. The nature of their demand was thus different particularly as regards the status of the workmen, i.e., their claim to be workmen of ONGC. Thus, the settlement of 19th September, 2016, in which the employers were the contractors cannot bind the subject-dispute, where the appellants have been found to be the employer on the basis of materials considered by the High Court. Their engagement by the contractors cannot be the sole basis for determining their status as workmen of contractors. [Para 23][398-D-F]
1.3. The High Court rightly affirmed the findings of the Tribunal that the settlement of 19th September, 2016 did not bind the workmen whose cause the respondent Unions are espousing. The finding of the Tribunal that the settlement involving implementation of the FWP was not just and fair, which finding has been sustained by the High Court, is essentially a finding on facts based on appreciation of evidence. [Para 24][398-F-G]
1.3. The scope of jurisdiction of the Industrial Court is wide and in appropriate cases it has the jurisdiction even to make a contract. The directives issued by the Tribunal, as modified by the High Court are reasonable and cannot be termed as perverse. [Para 25][399-A-B]
ITC Ltd. Workers’ Welfare Association & Anr. v. Management of ITC Ltd. & Anr. (2002) 3 SCC 411: [2002] 1 SCR 711 – held inapplicable.
Workmen of the Food Corporation of India v. Food Corporation of India (1985) 2 SCC 136; Parimal Chandra Raha & Ors. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. (1995) 2 Supp SCC 611 : [1995] 3 SCR 34; Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Shramik Sena & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 439 : [1999]
1 Suppl. SCR 47; Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. v. National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 1 : [2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 343; Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 : [2006] 3 SCR 953; Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 12 SCC 233 : [2006]
6 Suppl. SCR 663; Mukand Ltd. v. Mukand Staff and Officers’ Association (2004) 10 SCC 460 : [2004] 2 SCR 951; Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-Education) Higher Secondary School & Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 10 : [1993] 3 SCR 863; Secretary to Govt. of India and Others v. Shivram Mahadu Gaikwad (1995) 3 Supp SCC 231; Kalyani Sharp India Ltd. v. Labour Court No.1, Gwalior & Anr. (2002) 9 SCC 655; National Engineering Industries Limited v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2000) 1 SCC 371 : [1999] 5 Suppl. SCR 87; Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Company Ltd. v. Jatin Chakravorty & Ors. (1960) 3 SCR 968 : [1960] 3 SCR 968; General Manager, Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad v. R.S. Sharma and Others (1986)
2 SCC 151 : [1986] 1 SCR 281; Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Porbandar v. Workmen (1960) AIR 777: [1960] 3 SCR 157; Barauni Refinery Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (1991)
1 SCC 4 : [1990] 3 SCR 282; ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 738 : [2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 63; Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1981) 4 SCC
627 : [1982] 1 SCR 929; Jhagrakhan Collieries (P) Ltd. v. G.C. Agarwal, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur (1975) 3 SCC 613 : [1975] 2 SCR 873; Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Workmen (1978) 3 SCC 42 : [1978] 3 SCR 535 - referred to.
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.