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

Excerpt:
labour and industrial - intra court appeals - maintainability of - preliminary issues - section 31 of the madhya pradesh industrial relations act, 1960 - madhya pradesh uchcha nyayalaya (khand nyayapeeth ko appeal) adhiniyam, 2005 - article 136, 226, 227 of the constitution - voluntary retirement scheme floated by company - benefits claimed by workmen - industrial dispute raised thereafter by workmen who opted for vrs that they were pressurized, threatened and forced to accept 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 226 of the constitution - proviso to sub-section (1) expressly declares that no such appeal shall lie against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution - petitions instituted by the company and decided by a single judge of the high court could not be said to be original proceeding under article 226 of the constitution - learned single judge had decided the petitions in exercise of power of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution - division bench was right in coming to the conclusion that intra court appeals filed by the company were not maintainable - company filed one writ petition against one employee - another petition filed against remaining employees (236) - according to the registry, there were practical difficulties and logistic problems since the petition was against more than 200 employees - petition dismissed as 'not pressed' - separate petitions filed by company against workmen - not a case of abandonment or giving up of claim by company - if company really wanted to give up the claim it would have withdrawn the petition filed against one employee also - cannot be said that courts below have committed any error of jurisdiction in not deciding the issue as to the maintainability of claim-petitions as preliminary issue - well settled that generally, all issues arising in a suit or proceeding should be tried together and a judgment should be pronounced on those issues - phrase `voluntary retirement scheme' itself presupposes that acceptance of retirement should be voluntary and must have been opted by employees with `free consent' - claim petitions pending before labour court - present proceedings are against interlocutory order - liberty granted to both parties to raise all contentions available in law - labour court to consider the matter on merits and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law - workmen cannot retain the benefit if they want to prosecute claim petitions instituted by them with the labour court - hence, the order passed by the division bench of the high court as to refund of amount cannot be termed unjust, inequitable or improper - claim petitions will not be proceeded with till such payment is made - if the payment is not made within the period stipulated above, the claim petitions of those applicants will automatically stand dismissed - appeals disposed of accordingly. [para 24, 33, 34, 52, 53, 64, 71, 72, 91, 92 ] - madhya pradesh accommodation control act (41 of 1961)section 31 & civil p.c.(5 of 1908), order 14, rule 2: [c.k. thakker & d.k. jain,jj] application against removal from service - applicants plea that they were forced to accept vrs and kept away from duty objection to tenability of claim raised by company on the ground that applicants have ceased to be its workmen - refusal by labour court to decide it as preliminary issue held, it is proper. section 2: [c.k. thakker & d.k.jain, jj] appeal to division bench maintainability nomenclature of proceedings or reference to particular atticle held, not conclusive. section 2: [c.k.thakker & d.k. jain, jj] appeal to division bench maintainability petition against industrial court refusing to decide certain issues as preliminary issues held, petition falls under article 227 of constitution and the order passed therein is not appealable before division bench. - 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. 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.order of labour court5. 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.

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.