http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SHRI BALWANTRAI CHIMANLAL TRIVEDI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M.   N. NAGRASHNA AND OTHERS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/08/1960

BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) KAPUR, J.L. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. SUBBARAO, K.

CITATION:  1960 AIR 1292  CITATOR INFO :  D          1974 SC 471  (8)  R          1977 SC2031  (2)  F          1978 SC 533  (9)

ACT: Supreme   Court--Appeal   by  special   leave--Question   of jurisdiction  of inferior court--Court not bound  to  decide where  there is no failure of  justice--Review--Constitution of India, Art. 136.

HEADNOTE: Where  at  the hearing of an appeal filed by  special  leave from  a decision of the High Court in a Writ Petition  filed there under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India against an order   of  the  Payment  of  Wages  Authority,  the   Court considered  that  there  was some force  in  the  contention relating to the jurisdiction of the Authority concerned  but did  not decide that question on the view that as there  had been  no  failure of justice the Court would  not  interfere under  its powers under Art. 136, and the appellant  applied for a review of the judgment 15 114 Held, that wide as are the powers of the Supreme Court under Art.  136 of the Constitution, its powers are  discretionary and though special leave had been granted the Court was  not bound to decide the question of jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal  or  court  where  the  decision  of  the  inferior tribunal or court had been taken to a higher tribunal  which undoubtedly had jurisdiction and from the decision of  which the   special  leave  was  granted  if  on  the  facts   and circumstances  of  the  case it came to  the  conclusion  in dealing with the appeal under that Article that there was no failure of justice. A. M. Allison v. B.  L. Sen, [1957] S.C.R. 359, relied on.

JUDGMENT:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Review Petition  No.  37  of 1959. Petition for Review of this Court’s judgment and order dated October 29, 1959, in Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1958. C.   K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, B. Sen,  J.   B. Mehta and J. B. Dadachanji, for the petitioner. N.   C. Chatterjee and S. S. Shukla, for respondents. J.   B. Mehta and J. B. Dadachanji, for interveners Nos. 1 to 13. J. B. Dadachanji, for interveners Nos. 14 to 19. 1960.  August 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO J.-This is an application for review of the judgment delivered by this Court, to which three of us were party, on October  29, 1959.  The ground on which review is sought  is that there are mistakes and/ or errors apparent on the  face of the record and therefore the judgment in question  should be  reviewed.   The  petitioner contends  further  that  the judgment under review had dealt with the matter of issue  of writs by High Courts under Art. 226 of the Constitution  and this involved a question which could only have been dealt by a  bench  of not less than five judges-and that is  why  the review  application has been placed before a bench  of  five judges.  Lastly it is contended that this Court should  have decided  the  question  of jurisdiction  as  various.  other parties  had agreed to be governed by the decision  in  this case and that would have saved multiplicity of proceedings. 115 Before  we  deal  with the points urged in  support  of  the petition  we  should  like to state what  exactly  has  been decided  by the judgment under review.  The appeal in  which the judgment under review was given came up before the Court on special leave granted under Art. 136 of the  Constitution from a decision of the Bombay High Court in a writ  petition filed  there under Art. 226 against an order of the  Payment of  Wages  Authority.  The question of jurisdiction  of  the Payment of Wages Authority was raised before this Court  and reliance in that connection was placed on the decision in A. V.  D’Costa v. B. C. Patel and another(1).  It was  remarked in the judgment under review that there appeared to be  some force in the contention relating to the jurisdiction of  the Payment  of  Wages  Authority; but this  Court  did  not  go further  and decide that question on the view that as  there had  been  no  failure  of  justice  this  Court  would  not interfere   under   its  powers  under  Art.  136   of   the Constitution, particularly as the matter came before it from a  decision of the Bombay High Court and not  directly  from the Authority.  In that connection reference was made to the case of A. M. Allison v. B. L. Sen (2), in which in  similar circumstances this Court had refused to decide the  question of  jurisdiction,  because it was satisfied that  there  had been no failure of justice.  All that therefore the judgment under  review  decided was that where this Court is  of  the view that there is no failure of justice it is not bound  to interfere   under   its  powers  under  Art.  136   of   the Constitution.  Reference to Allisons’ Case (2) was made only to  show that in almost similar circumstances  (except  that Allison’s  Case came to this Court on a certificate  granted under  Art. 133(1) (c) of the Constitution), this Court  had refused to decide the question of jurisdiction as there  was no  failure of justice.  The judgment under review  did  not deal with the powers of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and nowhere laid down anything in conflict with the previous decision of this Court in  H.   V.  Kamath   v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and others(3). (1) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1353.      (2) [1957] S.C.R. 359.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

(3) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1104. 116 Thus  the narrow point decided by the judgment under  review was  that when dealing with an appeal under Art. 136 of  the Constitution this Court comes to the conclusion %that  there is  no  failure of justice, it is not bound  to  decide  and interfere  even  when  a question  of  jurisdiction  of  the original  court  or tribunal is raised in a case  where  the matter  had  been  considered by a  higher  tribunal,  which undoubtedly  had jurisdiction, and the appeal to this  Court is from the decision of the higher tribunal. This being the decision of this Court in the judgment  under review,  let  us see if there is any reason to  review  that judgment  on the grounds urged in the petition.   Before  we consider the main ground in support of the review we  should like to observe that the fact that other parties had  agreed to be governed by the decision in the judgment under  review can  be no ground for review.  Are there then such  mistakes and/  or errors apparent on the face of record  which  would justify  a review?  It is said that in dealing with  whether there  has been failure of justice in this case, this  Court omitted  to  consider  certain  provisions  of  the   Bombay Industrial  Relations  Act,  1946.   Assuming  this  to   be correct,  the  question  still  is  whether  even  after   a consideration of those provisions the decision of this Court on  the  question  of failure of  justice  would  have  been different.  On a further consideration of the reasons  given in  the judgment under review for holding that there was  no failure  of justice we feel that the decision on this  point would  have  been  still the same  even  if  the  provisions referred  to had been considered.  In the  circumstances  we are  of  opinion that there is no ground for review  of  the judgment  even if it be assumed that certain  provisions  of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, were relevant and had not been considered. The main plank however of the petitioner is that this  Court was  bound to consider the question of jurisdiction and  the question  whether  there was failure of justice or  not  was bound up with the question of jurisdiction and a decision on that question was necessary to arrive at the conclusion that there was no 117 failure  of  justice.   This contention  also  must  in  our opinion be rejected, specially in the context of the  narrow point  which, as we have already indicated, was  decided  in the judgment under review.  Besides it is not unknown to law that  decisions  of  original courts and  tribunals  may  be allowed  to stand even though there may be some doubt as  to the  jurisdiction  of such courts or tribunals.   There  are provisions  in  the  revenue laws where  in  case  of  doubt whether   the   civil  court  or  the  revenue   court   has jurisdiction  the decision of the original court is  allowed to  stand  in  certain circumstances if there  has  been  no failure  of justice : (see, for example, ss. 290 and 291  of the  U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939).  Therefore when the  judgment under  review left the question of jurisdiction open on  the ground  that  there  was  no  failure  of  justice  and   in consequence this Court refused to exercise its  jurisdiction under  Art. 136, it cannot be said that something  was  done which was unknown to law.  It is necessary to remember  that wide  as  are our powers under Art. 136, their  exercise  is discretionary;  and  if  it is conceded, as it  was  in  the course  of  the  arguments,  that  this  Court  could   have dismissed  the  appellant’s application  for  special  leave summarily on the ground that the order under appeal had done

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

substantial  justice,  it  is difficult  to  appreciate  the argument that because leave has been granted this Court must always and in every case deal with the merits even though it is  satisfied  that  ends  of justice  do  not  justify  its interference  in a given case.  In the circumstances we  are of  opinion  that  this Court was not bound  to  decide  the question  of jurisdiction on the facts and circumstances  of this case when it had come to the conclusion in dealing with an appeal Under Art. 136 of the Constitution that there  was no  failure  of justice.  The review  application  therefore fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.                       Review application dismissed. 118