Ramesh Chandra Sankla Etc. Vs. Vikram Cement Etc. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....amount which was also not adequate and 'full and final settlement' of dues - labour court directed company to file written statement as there was factual dispute between parties - additional issues were framed but not treated as preliminary issues as same could not be decided without recording evidence - order of labour court upheld by industrial court and learned single judge - division bench of high court held intra court appeals not maintainable as writ petitions were filed under article 227 but directed workmen to refund the amount to the employer - workmen aggrieved with that part of order directing them to refund the amount - company aggrieved by order holding intra court appeal not maintainable and also not deciding additional issues of jurisdiction and maintainability of petitions as preliminary issues - hence present special leave petitions - held, bare reading of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the act leaves no room for doubt that it allows a party aggrieved by a decision of a single judge of the high court to appeal to a division bench of the high court if a single judge has rendered a judgment or passed an order in exercise of original jurisdiction under article..........cases only on that ground. the labour court considered objections raised by the company and reply of the workmen.it, however, opined that there was `factual dispute' between the parties and it was not possible to dismiss cases as being not maintainable. it, therefore, directed the company by an order dated september 16, 2003 to file written statement so that the matter may be decided on merits. the company challenged the said order by approaching the industrial court, madhya pradesh at indore but the said application was also dismissed by the industrial tribunal vide an order dated february 11, 2004. the company then filed reply contending that the applications filed by the `so called workmen' were clearly an `afterthought', more so, when they had accepted the amounts/benefits under the scheme. hence, the claim was wholly ill-founded. it was averred by the company that some of the workmen had even approached the authority under the payment of gratuity act for increased amount of gratuity, thus, clearly exhibiting and admitting to the severance of relationship of master and servant between the parties. it was contended that the workmen could not be allowed to resile from the stand.....

Judgment:

ORDER

OF LABOUR COURT

5. Cases were duly registered by the Labour Court. Notices were issued. The Company appeared and raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the claim put forward by the workmen. It was contended by the Company that the workmen had accepted the scheme and received the amount towards `full and final settlement' and left the Company for ever. It was not a case of `removal' or `termination' of services and the applications were liable to be dismissed as they were no more in employment. A prayer was, therefore, made to uphold preliminary objections which were of legal nature and to dismiss cases only on that ground. The Labour Court considered objections raised by the Company and reply of the workmen.

It, however, opined that there was `factual dispute' between the parties and it was not possible to dismiss cases as being not maintainable. It, therefore, directed the Company by an order dated September 16, 2003 to file written statement so that the matter may be decided on merits. The Company challenged the said order by approaching the Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh at Indore but the said application was also dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal vide an order dated February 11, 2004. The Company then filed reply contending that the applications filed by the `so called workmen' were clearly an `afterthought', more so, when they had accepted the amounts/benefits under the scheme. Hence, the claim was wholly ill-founded. It was averred by the Company that some of the workmen had even approached the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act for increased amount of gratuity, thus, clearly exhibiting and admitting to the severance of relationship of master and servant between the parties. It was contended that the workmen could not be allowed to resile from the stand taken by them earlier. They were estopped from challenging the factum of voluntary retirement.

6. The Company moved the Labour Court on November 9, 2004 requesting the Court to frame three additional issues viz., 4(a), 4(b) and 4 (c) and hear them as preliminary issues. The said issues read as under:

4(a) Whether the application is barred by estoppel?

4(b) Whether the application filed by the applicant can be heard under Sections 31(3), 61 and 62 of MPIR Act?

4(c) Whether the application is time barred?

7. The Labour Court accepted the request of the Company to frame issues 4(a), 4(b) and 4 (c). It, however, rejected the prayer to decide those issues as `preliminary issues' before deciding other issues on merits. According to the Labour Court, it was not advisable to decide the issues as preliminary issues without recording evidence. The application of the Company was, therefore, dismissed.