LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/the-vvf-ltd-employees-union-vs-m-s-vvf-india-limited-anr-20240409/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

The VVF Ltd. Employees Union vs M/S. VVF India Limited & Anr.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
9 April 2024
Case No.
Civil Appeal Nos. 2744-2745 of 2023
Result
Disposed
Bench
Aniruddha Bose, Sanjay Kumar
Citation
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 576 : 2024 INSC 293
Acts & Sections
Constitution
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 4 S.C.R. 576 : 2024 INSC 293
Issue for consideration
The two appeals arise out of a judgment delivered by a Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay on 25.07.2019 directing, inter alia, wage revisions pertaining to the workmen of employer-VVF Ltd. working in two units at Sewree and Sion. Whether the High Court had travelled beyond its jurisdiction in appreciating facts and in that process substituted the finding of the Tribunal with its own finding on facts.
Headnote

Constitution of India – Writ – Scope of jurisdiction of High Court – Wages – Revision – The demands of the Union would appear from the charter of demand and they primarily relate to prayers for revision in pay scale/wages/salaries along with certain allowances such as leave facilities and gratuity – The Tribunal, in its award passed, granted relief to the employees – Writ petitions filed – The High Court entered into the factfinding exercise while testing legality of an award – The High Court allowed the workmen’s writ petition by setting aside the award of the Tribunal so far as the first four demands as per the charter are concerned and upheld the Tribunal’s verdict regarding Demand No. 5-11 – Correctness:

Held: Analysis of the various judgments of the Supreme Court reflect the position of law that though the High Court ought not to re-appreciate evidence and substitute its own finding for that of the Tribunal, it would not be beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court in its power of judicial review to altogether eschew such a process – The High Court, in the impugned judgment, however, re-appreciated the evidence led before the Tribunal in identifying comparable concerns for applying the industry-cum-region test – In particular, the employer has emphasised that the High Court ignored the negative financial status of the company on the ground that the losses made by it was miniscule – The financial capacity of an employer is an important factor which could not be ignored in fixing wage structure – In the given facts where the employer seriously contested the use of the concerned units as comparable ones, and highlighted its difficult financial position, the proper course would have been to remit the matter to the Industrial Tribunal rather than entering into these factual question independently in exercise of the writ jurisdiction – This exercise would have required leading of evidence before the primary forum, the Industrial Tribunal in this case. [Para 15]

Keywords: Wages · Revision · Writ · Jurisdiction of High Court · Re-appreciation of facts · Legality of award

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.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Aniruddha Bose, J. The two appeals (i.e. Civil Appeal Nos.2745 and 2754 of 2023) arise out of a judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay on 25.07.2019 directing, inter alia, wage revisions pertaining to the workmen of VVF India Limited (“the employer”) working in two units at Sewree and Sion. Civil Appeal No.2744 of 2023 has been instituted by the employees union (“the union”) against a judgment of the High Court delivered on 22.06.2021 dismissing the union’s petition for review of the judgment passed on 25.07.2019. Argument of the union in the review
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

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.

All SC judgments →