Case Note & Summary
The case arises from an industrial dispute where the appellant, Dilip Mani Dubey, a workman, was terminated by his employer, M/s SIEL Ltd. The State of U.P. made a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut, which by award dated 27.06.1998 held the termination illegal and directed reinstatement with back wages. The employer challenged this award by filing a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court. The High Court, by judgment dated 29.11.2007, allowed the writ petition and set aside the award, holding that the workman had not completed one year of continuous service as required under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The workman's review petition was dismissed on 05.02.2008. Aggrieved, the workman appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court framed the issue as whether the High Court was justified in allowing the writ petition. The Court noted that the main question was whether the workman was in continuous service for one year, which is a finding of fact. The High Court had examined the matter in detail and its finding was neither against evidence nor perverse. Therefore, the Supreme Court declined to re-examine the issue de novo under Article 136. The Court also rejected the workman's reliance on Sriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd. vs. Mahak Singh, distinguishing it on facts. However, the Court upheld the High Court's direction that the amount paid to the workman under Section 17B of the ID Act during pendency of litigation shall not be recoverable, as such proceedings are independent. The appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Continuous Service - Section 6N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act - The core issue was whether the workman had completed one year of continuous service with the employer. The Industrial Tribunal answered in favour of the workman, but the High Court reversed this finding. The Supreme Court held that the finding of fact by the High Court, being neither against evidence nor perverse, is binding and cannot be re-examined de novo in appeal under Article 136 (Paras 11-17). B) Industrial Law - Recovery of Amount Paid Under Section 17B - Section 17B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The High Court directed that the amount paid to the workman under Section 17B during pendency of litigation shall not be recoverable. The Supreme Court upheld this direction, noting that proceedings under Section 17B are independent and the employer cannot recover such amounts even if the termination is ultimately upheld, relying on Dena Bank vs. Kirtikumar T. Patel and other precedents (Paras 19-22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the writ petition and setting aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal which had ordered reinstatement with back wages
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's order setting aside the award of reinstatement. However, the direction that the amount paid under Section 17B of ID Act during pendency shall not be recoverable was affirmed.
Law Points
- Finding of fact by High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot be re-examined de novo by Supreme Court under Article 136 unless perverse
- Amount paid under Section 17B of ID Act during pendency of proceedings is not recoverable even if termination is upheld
