http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil) 15178 2000

PETITIONER: GOURI SANKAR CHATTERJEE & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: TEXMACO LIMITED & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/12/2000

BENCH: K.G.Balakrishna, S.R.Babu

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     J U D G M E N T

     K.G.  BALAKRISHNAN

     The  petitioners claimed that they had been working in the  first  respondent-company since last several  years  as ’Budli’   workers  and  that  they   were  entitled  to   be regularised.   This dispute between the petitioners and  the management  of the first respondent-company was referred  to the  Industrial  Tribunal by the appropriate Government  for adjudication.   The  dispute  referred   to  the  Industrial Tribunal read thus:

     "Whether  the demand of the Badli workmen as shown  in the  annexure  for regularisation of their services  in  the permanent  roll of the company is justified?  What  reliefs, if any, are they entitled?"

     The Industrial Tribunal, by its award dated 29.1.1999, held  that out of the 100 workmen, 92 workmen were  entitled to  be regularised and to have all benefits and status  like regular employees.  They were further held to be entitled to have  other  statutory benefits also from the date of  their respective initial engagement.

     The  award  of the Tribunal was challenged before  the High  Court  on the ground that the Industrial Tribunal  had committed  an error of jurisdiction as it allowed the  scope of  the  Reference to be enlarged.  But, this plea  was  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

accepted  by the learned Single Judge and the writ  petition was  dismissed.   An  application filed by  the  petitioners herein  under  Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes  Act, 1947  was  allowed and it was directed that the  92  workmen should  be paid every month an amount of Rs.3, 919.46  until conclusion  of  the  proceedings  or  grant  of   ’permanent workman’  status,  whichever  was earlier.  The  arrears  of wages  were also directed to be cleared within a  stipulated period.   The  decision  of  the learned  Single  Judge  was challenged before the Division Bench of the High Court.

     The Division Bench held that the Tribunal had enlarged the scope of the Reference and thereby committed an error of jurisdiction.   It was held that the main issue was  whether ’Budli’ workmen should be regularised, and for arriving at a just  conclusion,  it  was permissible for the  Tribunal  to consider  as  to how the workmen had been treated and as  to whether they had been subjected to unfair labour practice or not.   However, while doing so, the Tribunal, evidently, did not  put  the management of the first respondent-company  on notice.   The  Division Bench of the High Court was  of  the opinion   that   had   the     management   of   the   first respondent-company been put on notice, it could have brought on  record the relevant material therefor.  In that context, reliance  was  placed  by  the High Court  on  the  decision reported in Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co.  of India Pvt.  Ltd. vs.   Workmen 1981 (II) LLJ 218 and ultimately the  Division Bench  held that the Industrial Tribunal should consider the matter  afresh in accordance with law and for that  purpose, the  award passed by the Industrial Tribunal was set  aside. It  was  also  directed that the decision  should  be  taken within   a  period  of  three   months  from  the  date   of communication  of  the order.  The direction of the  learned Single  Judge  to extend the benefits under Section 17-B  of the  Industrial  Disputes  Act to the petitioners  was  also vacated.

     We  heard  the learned counsel on either side at  some length.  Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned  judgment of the Division Bench of the High  Court. Consequently,  the Reference be considered by the Industrial Tribunal  afresh  in  accordance with law.   We  express  no opinion on merits.

     The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.