Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Banwarilal Laxminarayan Sharma, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated 29.09.1997 issued by the Labour Court, Nashik in Misc. Recovery Proceedings No.58/1997. The demand notice was based on a judgment dated 21.10.1994 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in an appeal, which directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 27,000 with interest at 6% per annum to respondent no.1. The petitioner contended that his name was deleted from the appeal by the Registrar's order dated 08.12.1993 and by court order dated 24.06.1994, and that the Division Bench order was passed without hearing him, making it void and non-est. The court noted that the petitioner had knowledge of the Division Bench order after receiving the demand notice but did not challenge it by any appropriate application or petition before the same Division Bench or any other court. The court held that the order had attained finality and was binding on the Single Bench. The Single Bench had no jurisdiction to treat the Division Bench order as void or unenforceable. The writ petition was dismissed as the challenge to the demand notice was essentially a collateral attack on the Division Bench order, which was not permissible.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Binding Precedent - Division Bench Order - An order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court is binding on a Single Bench, even if it is ex parte. The Single Bench has no jurisdiction to treat such order as void or non-est without the order being quashed by an appropriate forum. (Paras 3-4)
B) Recovery Proceedings - Finality of Order - Labour Court - A demand notice issued by the Labour Court based on a final order of the Division Bench cannot be challenged on the ground that the order was passed without hearing the petitioner, as the order has attained finality and was not challenged earlier. (Paras 3-4)
C) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope - Collateral Challenge - A writ petition challenging a recovery notice cannot be used as an appellate forum to question the validity of a Division Bench order that has become final. The proper remedy is to challenge the order before the same Division Bench or a higher court. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a demand notice issued by the Labour Court based on a Division Bench order can be challenged on the ground that the order was passed without hearing the petitioner, and whether the Single Bench can ignore the Division Bench order.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The demand notice dated 29.09.1997 issued by the Labour Court, Nashik in Misc. Recovery Proceedings No.58/1997 is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order of Division Bench is binding on Single Bench
- Order not challenged becomes final
- Recovery notice based on final order is valid
- Ex parte order cannot be treated as void without challenge
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (03) 109
Writ Petition No. 5794 of 1997
Mr. Babasaheb Deshmukh i/b. Mr. N. B. Shah for the petitioner. None for the respondents.
Banwarilal Laxminarayan Sharma
Smt. Sagunabai Rambhau Gavali, General Manager, Central Railway, Ramesh Rambhau Gavali
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging a demand notice issued by the Labour Court for recovery of amount based on a Division Bench order.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the demand notice dated 29.09.1997 issued by the Labour Court, Nashik in Misc. Recovery Proceedings No.58/1997.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed that the Division Bench order dated 21.10.1994 was passed without hearing him as his name was deleted from the appeal, and therefore the demand notice based on that order was void.
Previous Decisions
Division Bench of Bombay High Court passed order dated 21.10.1994 in L.P.A. No.49/1992 in First Appeal No.24/1983 directing petitioner to pay Rs. 27,000 with interest. Registrar's order dated 08.12.1993 and court order dated 24.06.1994 deleted petitioner's name from the appeal. Demand notice dated 29.09.1997 issued by Labour Court.
Issues
Whether the demand notice based on a Division Bench order can be challenged on the ground that the order was passed without hearing the petitioner?
Whether the Single Bench can ignore or treat as void a Division Bench order that has not been challenged?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that his name was deleted from the appeal by orders dated 08.12.1993 and 24.06.1994, and the Division Bench order was passed without hearing him, making it void and non-est.
Petitioner argued that the demand notice based on such order is bad in law.
Ratio Decidendi
An order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court, even if ex parte, is binding on a Single Bench and cannot be treated as void or non-est without being challenged before an appropriate forum. A recovery notice based on such an order that has attained finality cannot be collaterally challenged in a writ petition.
Judgment Excerpts
The Order, even if it is passed in such fashion, unless quashed and set aside by appropriate Petition and/or due appropriate Forum, the same is binding.
This Court has no jurisdiction and/or is not empowered to deal with the reasoned order passed by the Division Bench though it is exparte.
The Order passed by the Division Bench is binding upon the Single Bench.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 5794 of 1997 challenging the demand notice dated 29.09.1997 issued by the Labour Court, Nashik in Misc. Recovery Proceedings No.58/1997. The demand notice was based on the judgment dated 21.10.1994 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in L.P.A. No.49/1992 in First Appeal No.24/1983. The petitioner had not challenged the Division Bench order earlier. The writ petition was heard and dismissed on 15.03.2010.
