Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Glasstech Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd., challenged an award dated 30-06-2012 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane, in Reference IT No.20 of 2006. The Industrial Court had directed the petitioner to reinstate 48 workmen with continuity of service and full back wages from 18-11-2005. The dispute arose when the workmen joined the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union on 11-11-2005 and were subsequently prevented from entering the factory premises. The union claimed that the workmen were directly employed by the company, performing production duties such as operating cutting and washing machines, furnaces, and carrying heavy glass sheets. The company contended that the workmen were employees of a contractor, M/s. Venkatesh Construction and Earth Movers Company. The Industrial Court, after considering evidence, held that the workmen were directly employed by the company. The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227, found no perversity or error of law in the Industrial Court's findings and dismissed the petition, upholding the award of reinstatement with full back wages.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Reference - Reinstatement with Back Wages - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10 - The Industrial Court allowed a reference directing reinstatement of 48 workmen with continuity of service and full back wages from 18-11-2005. The court held that the workmen were directly employed by the company and not by the contractor, based on evidence of control and supervision. (Paras 1-2)
B) Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of Interference - The High Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, declined to interfere with the Industrial Court's award, finding no perversity or error of law. The court held that the findings of fact were based on evidence and not open to re-appreciation in writ proceedings. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in directing reinstatement with full back wages of 48 workmen who were allegedly employed through a contractor, and whether the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against such award should be entertained.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's award directing reinstatement of the 48 workmen with continuity of service and full back wages from 18-11-2005.
Law Points
- Industrial Dispute Act
- 1947
- Section 10
- Reference
- Reinstatement
- Back Wages
- Workmen
- Contractor
- Direct Employment
- Control and Supervision
- Writ Jurisdiction
- Article 227
- Constitution of India
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (01) 39
WRIT PETITION NO.10286 of 2012
Mr. J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hamed Kadiani, Ms Rutuja Joshi, Ms Bhagyashree Lumbhe and Ms Dhruti Kapadia i/b ALMT Legal for the Petitioner; Mr. N.M.Ganguli for the Respondent No.1; Mr. M.S.Bhardwaj with Mr. Rui Rodrigues for the Respondent No.3 (Union of India)
M/s. Glasstech Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd.
1. The Workmen represented by Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, 2. The Industrial Court, Thane, 3. Union of India through Ministry of Labour
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an award of the Industrial Court directing reinstatement of 48 workmen with full back wages.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner company sought to quash the Industrial Court's award dated 30-06-2012 in Reference IT No.20 of 2006.
Filing Reason
The petitioner company challenged the Industrial Court's finding that the 48 workmen were its direct employees and not employees of a contractor, and the consequent direction for reinstatement with full back wages.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court, Thane, by its award dated 30-06-2012, allowed the reference and directed reinstatement of 48 workmen with continuity of service and full back wages from 18-11-2005.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court erred in holding that the 48 workmen were directly employed by the petitioner company and not by the contractor.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Industrial Court's award under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner company argued that the 48 workmen were employees of a contractor, M/s. Venkatesh Construction and Earth Movers Company, and not its direct employees.
The respondent union contended that the workmen were directly employed by the company, performing production duties under its control and supervision.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the Industrial Court's findings of fact, based on evidence regarding the nature of employment and control, were not perverse and did not warrant interference under Article 227. The court emphasized that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and does not extend to re-appreciating evidence unless there is a clear error of law or perversity.
Judgment Excerpts
Considering the nature of the order that is to be passed, it is not necessary to go into unnecessary details.
The Writ Jurisdiction of this under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the Award dated 30-06-2012 passed by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court, Thane.
Procedural History
The dispute was initially raised by the workmen before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Panvel, leading to a reference (IT No.20 of 2006) to the Industrial Court, Thane. The Industrial Court allowed the reference on 30-06-2012. The petitioner company then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 16-01-2013.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 10
