SAiL Contract Workers' Union Vs. SAiL and Ors. (02.03.1994 - SC)

SAiL Contract Workers' Union vs SAiL and Ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Mar 02, 1994

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/672897

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/672897
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: Kuldip Singh and; N.P. Singh, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 02, 1994
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 1994 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 168/1994)
Subject: Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Labour and Industrial - ex-gratia payment - Section 10 (1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - management refused to provide work to workmen - suit filed by workmen against refusal - each workmen involved in litigation to be paid Rs. 25000 as ex-gratia payment - payment in respect of workmen who died during pendency ...

Key legal issue: Labour and Industrial
Acts & sections: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 10(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

SAiL Contract Workers' Union

Respondent

SAiL and Ors.

Legal References

Acts: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 10(1)
Reported In: JT1994(3)SC455; 1993(1)KarLJ439; (1994)IILLJ1125SC; (1994)2UPLBEC1290

Excerpt

.....by five years as on 1.1.2004 - circular dated 22.3.2002 extending relaxation of age for further period of two years and if any candidate was below the age of 35 years till march 2003, he was eligible - cut-off date if 31.3.2003 - held, had intention of public service commission been to consider 31.3.2003 as cut-off date it would have explicitly specified so. hence, high court erred in considering 31.3.2003 as a cut-off date for eligibility. cut-off dates were as specified in circular/notification concerned. labour & services recruitment process:[tarun chatterjee & h.l.dattu,jj] eligibility age-limit - cancellation of candidature after appearing in preliminary examination respondents who had been found over aged contending that as per 2003 advertisement those who were eligible to appear in 2001 examination were also eligible to appear in 2003 examination -held, fact that respondents had passed preliminary examination does not mean that their application/candidature is valid. public service commission was fully authorised to cancel candidature of candidates at any stage without prior intimation. further, clause 10 of 2003 advertisement clearly specified that benefit was available to only those who had appeared for 2001 examination and not to those who were entitled to apply for 2001 examination. hence, cancellation of candidature, upheld. .....the award by way of a writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india. a learned single judge of the high court dismissed the writ petition. the letters patent bench of the high court, however, reversed the findings of the learned single judge, allowed the appeal and set aside the award of the labour court. this appeal by the workmen is against the judgment of the division bench of the high court.4. we have heard learned counsel for the parties. it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the controversy. keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met if each of the 80 workmen involved in this litigation is paid a sum of rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) as ex-gratia payment by the management. we order accordingly. the management shall pay the amount of rs. 25,000/- to each of the appellants-workmen by a demand draft after identifying the workmen. the payment in respect of the workmen who have died during the pendency of the litigation be given to their legal heirs.5. we are ordering the ex-gratia payment to the workmen keeping in view the chequered history of the case and as such this shall not be taken as a precedent. 6. since the workmen have been engaged in this litigation for a very long time and have been pushed from one court to another, we further direct that the respondent-management shall pay a sum of rs.25,000/- to the appellants as costs.7. the management shall pay the amount to each of the workmen within the period of four months from today. the appeal is disposed of and the division bench order shall stand modified to the extent indicated above.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. This appeal has arisen from a reference made by the Karnataka Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference was in the following terms:

I. Are the Management of Steel Authority of India, Kudremukh Building, M.G. Road B'lore - 1, justified in refusing work to 80 workmen listed in ANNEXURE with effect from 19-01-1979 employed through their Contractor Sri Jayarama Reddy, No.884, 11th Main 'A', 3rd Cross, Indiranagar, Bangalore -38?'

II. 'If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?'

3. The Labour Court gave its award in favour of the workmen. The management challenged the award by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Letters Patent Bench of the High Court, however, reversed the findings of the learned single Judge, allowed the appeal and set aside the award of the Labour Court. This appeal by the workmen is against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.

4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the controversy. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met if each of the 80 workmen involved in this litigation is paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) as ex-gratia payment by the management. We order accordingly. The management shall pay the amount of Rs. 25,000/- to each of the appellants-workmen by a demand draft after identifying the workmen. The payment in respect of the workmen who have died during the pendency of the litigation be given to their legal heirs.

5. We are ordering the ex-gratia payment to the workmen keeping in view the chequered history of the case and as such this shall not be taken as a precedent.

6. Since the workmen have been engaged in this litigation for a very long time and have been pushed from one court to another, we further direct that the respondent-management shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the appellants as costs.

7. The management shall pay the amount to each of the workmen within the period of four months from today. The appeal is disposed of and the Division Bench order shall stand modified to the extent indicated above.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 1994 Same Parties SAiL Contract Workers' Union vs SAiL and Ors. Same Subject Labour and Industrial Same Judge Kuldip Singh and; N.P. Singh, JJ. Acts & Sections Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 10(1)

Labour and Industrial