Holding

Courts exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 136 must not interfere with the findings of special tribunals on preliminary issues unless absolutely necessary; the High Court's interference was unjustified.

Summary

D.P. Maheshwari was terminated from his employment in 1969 and raised an industrial dispute that was referred to the Additional Labour Court under sections 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court examined the evidence and held that Maheshwari was a "workman" under section 2(s) because his duties were chiefly clerical. The employer challenged this finding, obtained a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the Delhi High Court (single judge and later a division bench) quashed the Labour Court’s order and the reference. Maheshwari obtained special leave to appeal under Article 136. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s interference with the Labour Court’s factual findings on a preliminary issue was unjustified, emphasizing that courts exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 136 should not meddle with tribunals at interlocutory stages unless absolutely necessary. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgments, restored the Labour Court’s order, and directed the Labour Court to dispose of the reference within three months.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 may interfere with a Labour Court's finding on a preliminary issue such as the definition of a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Whether the Supreme Court, under Article 136, may overturn a High Court's decision that interferes with a tribunal's jurisdiction at the interlocutory stage.
Scope and limits of the supervisory jurisdiction of courts under Articles 226 and 136 in relation to special tribunals.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 136, s. 226
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 10(1)(c), s. 12(5), s. 2(s)

Subjects

industrial disputeworkman definitionpreliminary issuesupervisory jurisdictionArticle 226Article 136Labour Courttribunal interferenceIndustrial Disputes Act

Judgment

949

D. P. MAftESHWARI
A
v.

. DELHI ADMN. & ORS. '
September 14, 1983 ·

[D. A. DESAI, 0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY AND
A. VARADARAJAN, JJ,j

lndustrlal Disputes Act-AdjudicatiOn of disputes-Duty of Tribunals and
Courts while deciding Preliniinary Questions.
c
Constitution of India-Arts. 226 and 136-Nature of jurisdiction-Courts
, ' not to be too astute to interfere with .exercise of juris4iction by Special tribunals at
iriter-locutory stage$ and on prelimina,·y issues:

An industrial dispute concerning the termination of .services of the
• appellant in 1969 was referred for adjudication by the Labour Court under ss. D
10 (I) (c) and 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act in the year 1970. The
Managc::mc::nL of the con1pany in which he was employed ·questioned the
reference itself by filing a petition under Art. 226 and when it was rejected, the
Management raised a preliminary contention before the Labour Court that the
appellant was not a •workman' and therefore the reference was incompetent.
The Labour Court, after a detailed and careful examination. of ihe oral and
documentary evidence produced by both - the appellant and the Management E
came to the conclusion that the appellant Was a •workman' under s. 2 (s) of the
Act as he was employed mainly for clerical duties. This finding was challenged
b)' the Management once again by filing a petition under Art. 226 and a Single
Judge of the High Court allowed the same and quashed the order of the Labour
Court as welJ as the reference made by the Governrnent. On his appeal having
been rejected by a Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant approached
this Court under ·Art. 136.

A1lowing the appeal,

HELD : The nature of jurh.dic~ion under Art. 226 is supervisory and not
appellate while that under Art. 136 is·primirily supervisory but the Court may G
exercise all necessary appellate Powers to do_ substantial justice. In the exercise
Of such jurisdiction neither the l:ligh Court nor this Court is required to be too
astute to interfere wit11 the exercise of_ jurisdiction by sp~cial tribunals at
interlocutor~ stages ,and on preliminary issues. [951 G-H]

Tribunals like Industrial Tribunals are constituted to decide expedi:.. B
. tiously sp'eciai"kinds of disputes and their jurisdiction to so decide is not to be
stifled by all manner of preliminary objections and jpurneyings up and down.
Tribunals and Court.; wi10 are requested to decide preliminary question~ must
SuPREME COURT REPORTS

ask ·themselves whether such threshold part-adjudication is reaIJY necessary and
A whether it will not iead to other woeful consequences. Th.ere was a time when
it was thought prudent and wise to decide prelimina'ry issues first. But the
time appears to have arrived for a reversal of that policy. It is better that
tribunals, particularly those entrusted with the tisk of adjudicMing Labour
disputes where delay may lead to 11].isery and jeoPiardise indµstriai pea'ce, should
decide all issues in dispute at the-same time withOut trying some of' them as
preliminary issues. Nor ·should High Courts.in the exercise or their jurisdiction
B under Art.· 226 stop proceeding$ before a Tribunal so that a preliminary issues
may be decided by thorn. Neither the jurisdiction of the High Court\ under
Art. 226 nor the jurisdiction of this Court under.Art 136 may be allowed to
be exploited by those who can well afford to wait to the detriment of those who
call ill afford to wait by dragging the latter from Court to Court for adjudi~
cation o-f peripheral issues, avoiding decision on- issues- more vital to them.
c Articles 226 and 136 are not _meant to be used to break the resistance of
workmen in this fashion. (951 F, C-D]
1-·--
. The instant case relates to a. .dispute originating in 1969 and referred for
adjudication in 1970 whicf1 is. still at the stage of decision of a preliminary
objec!ion. The Labour Court considered the entire evidence and recorded a
positive finding that that appellant who was discharging duties of a clerical
D nature was a •workman'. The Single Judge of the High Court did not refer to
a single iten1· of evidence while reversing the finding of the Labour Court. He
a'ppeared to differ from the Labour Court. on a queStion of fact on the basis of
)>. .. ~

a generali~ation without" reference to SR,ecific evidence. The Division Bench
_which affirrr,ed the judgment of the Single Judge also fead the judgment of the
Labou~ Court in a similar unfair fashion, and did not consider any of the
E evide'nce considered by the Labour Court and yet characterised the :::onclusion
of the Labour Court as perverse. No appellate Court is entitled to do that
less.so, a Court exercising superVisory jurisdiction.
[951 C, 953 B, 954 C-D, 955 CJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICT!ON : Civil Appeal No. 3844 of
F 1983 .. ' 4
I

·, Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 25th July, !980 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 89 of
1976.

G A. K. Gupta for the Appellant.

G.B. Pai, S. N. Bhandari and Ashok Grover for Respondent.
No. 3.
H
R. N. Poddar for Respondent No. I.
\
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

'
.b.P. MAHESHWARJ v. DELHI ADMN. (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 951

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. It was just the other day that we were
bemoaning the unbecoming devices adopted by certain employer.s to A
avoid decision of industrial disputes on· merits. We noticed how
they would raise various preliminary objections, invite decision on
those objections in the first instance, carry the matter to the High
Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and to this Court
under Art. 136 of the Constitution and delay a decision . of the real
B
dispute for years, sometimes for over a decade. Industrial peace,
one presumes, hangs in th' balance in the meanwhile. We have now
before us a case where a disp~t' originating in 1969 and referred
for a_djudication by the Government to the Labour Court in 1970 is
still at the stage of decision on a preliminary objection. There was
a time when it was thought prudent and wise policy to decide c
preliminary issues first. But the time appears to have arrived for a
, I
reversal of that policy. We think \it is better that tribunals, parti-
cularly those entrusted with the task of adjudicating labour disputes
where delay may lead to misery and jeopardise industrial peace,
should decide all issues in dispute at the same tiine without try'ng
some of them as preliminary issues. Nor should High Courts in D
the exccrcise of their jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution
stop proceedings before a Tribunal so that a preliminary issue may
be decided by them.. Neither the jurisdiction of the High Court
under Art. 226 of the Con;titntion nor the jurisdiction of this Court
under Art. 136 may be allowed ,to be e~ploited by those who can E
well afford to wait to the detriment of those who can ill afford to
wait by dragging the latter from Court to Court for adjudication of
periphereal issues, avoiding decision on issues more vital to them.
Art. 226 and Art. 136 af'e not meant to be used to break the resis-
tance of workmen in this fashion. Tribunals and Courts who are
requested to decide preliminary questions must therefore ask them- F
selves whether such threshold part-adjudication is really necessary
and whether it will not lead to other woeful consequences. After
all tribunals like Industrial Tribunals are constituted to decide
· expeditiously special kinds of disputes and their jurisdiction to so
decide is not to be stilled by all manner of preliminary objections
G
journeyings up and down. It is also worth while remem~ering that
the nature of the jurisdiction under Art. 226 is supervisory and not
appellate while that under Art. 136 is primarily supervisory but the
Court may exercise all necessary appellate powers to do substantial
justice. In the exercise ~f such jurisdiction' neither the High Court H
nor this Court is required to be too astute to interfere with the
exercise of jurisdiction by special tribunals at interlocutory stages
and on: preliminary issues. -
'
9s2 SUPREME COtlRT RE:i>ORTS (1983] 3 s.e.il..

Having sermonised this much, we may now proceed to state
the facts which provoked . the · sermon. The appellant D. P.
Maheshwari was an employee of Toshniwal Brothers Pvt. Ltd., when
•his services were terminated with effect from 28th July 1969. He
raised an industrial dispute and on 3rd July 1970 the Lt. Governor
of Delhi referred the dispute for adjudication to the Additional
B Labour Court Delhi under sections IO(l)(c) and 12(5) of the Indus·
trial Disputes Act. The dispute referred for adjudication to the
Labour Court was, "Whether the termination· of services of Shri
D. P. Maheshwari is illegal and/or unjustified and if so to what relief
is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect ?"
The Management straightaway questioned the reference by filing Writ
c petition No. 159 of 1972 in the Delhi Higl:! Court. The writ petition
.
was dismissed 011 22nd May 1972. Thereafter the management
' .
raised a preliminary contention before the Labour Court that
D. P. ·Maheshwari was not a 'workman' within the meaning of
.
'

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and· the reference was
D therefore incompetent. The Labour c:ourt tried the question whether
D P. Maheshwari was a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the
Industriai Disputes Act as a.preliminary issue. Both parties adduced
oral and \)ocumentary evidence.. After referring to the ·evidence of
the employee's witnesses the 'Labour Court said, "Thus according
to the evidence of the claimant's witnesses the claimant. was emp-
E loyed mainiy for clerical duties and he did discharge· the same."
The Labour Court then referred to the evidence of the witnesses
examined by the management and said, "Thus the said evidence
falls far short of proving •that the c]aimant was in fact discharging
mainly Administrative of supervisory duties." The Labour! Court
F. then proceeded to refer to the documents produced by the manage· · ·
ment and observed, "Thus th<; documents filed by the respondent do
not go to show·that the real nature of the duties discharged by the
claimant was supervisory or administrative in nature." The Labour
Court next referred to what it considered .to be an admission on the·
part of the management who had classified all their employees into
G three separate classes A, Band C, Class-A described as 'Managerial'
Class-B described as 'Supervisory' 'and Class-C described as 'Other
Staff'~ The name of D. P. Maheshwari was shown in Class-C. After
· reviewing the entire evidence the Labour Court finally recorded the
· following finding : ·
H
"From the above discussion, it is clear that the
claimant's evidence shows that he was doing mainly
b.P. MA!IESHWARI v. DELHI ADMN. (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 953

clerical work of maintaining certain registers preparing
drafts and seeking instructions from the superiors and A
).
respondents' lawyers during the period of his services
though designated Accounts Officer or -0fficer in special
duty or store purchase officer ............................... ; .
.............. ............................... ......................... ..
-. ~

B
.............................. ·········--·········-· ··················
' \

As a result, in my opinion it has to be held that the
nature of the main duties being discharged by the
claimant was clerical and not.supervisory or. adminis·
trative despite his designation as officer. Accordingly,
he has to be held to be a workman under section 2(s) of
the Industrial Dispute Act."
c
The. man~ement was dissatisfied with the decision of the
Labour Court on the preliminary issue. So, they invoked the High
Court's extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Art: 226 of the Constitu- ,
tion. A learned single judge· of the High Court, by his judgment D
dated 12th July 1976 allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the
order of the Labour Court and the reference made by the Govern-
ment. A Division B.ench of the High Court affirmed the decision
of the Single Judge on 25th July 1980. The matter .is now before
us at the instance of the workman who obtained ·special leave ·to
appeal under Art. 136 oh 4th April 1983. The services of the E
workman were terminated on' 28th July 1969. A year later the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. Thirteen
years thereafter the matter is still at the stage of de"cision on a
preliminary question. In our view, further comment is needless.
F
Shri · A.K. Gupta, the learned .counsel for the appellant
submitted that the High Court literally exercised appellate powers
and recorc)ed findings of fact differing from those recorded by the
Labour Cout; and this, he comi>Iained, had been done by an unfair
reading of the order of the Labour Court and without' the · High
Court itself considering a single item of evidence or document.' We G
are afraid there is considerable force i~ Shri Gupta's criticism .
.
Cnriously enough, the Learned Single Judge of the High Court
affirmed the finding of the Labour Court that D.P. Maheshwari was
not employed_ in a supervisory' capacity. He said, '
H
"In the face of this material and the admitted
hypothesis the conclusion that the respondent was not
954 SUPREME COURt REPORTS [1983) 3 s.c.n..
mainly employed in a supervisory capacity is certainly a
A possible conclusion that may be arrived at by any
Tribunal duly instructed in the law as to. the manner in
which the status of a·n employee may be determined. It
is, therefore, not possible for this Court to disturb such a
conclusion having regard to, the limited abmit of review
B of the impugned order."

Having so held, the Learned Single Judge went on to consider
whether the workman was discharging duties of a clerical ·nature. He
found tha tit would be difficult 'to say that D.P. Maheswari was
c discharging 'routme duties of a clerical nature which did not
involve initative, imagination, creativity and a limited p6wer of self
direction.' The Learned Single Judge did not refer to a ·single item • •

of evidence in support of the conclusions thus recorded by him .. He
appeared to differ from the Labour Court on a question of fact on
the basis of a generalisation. without reference to. specific evidence.
D No appellate court is entitled to do that, less so, a court exercising
supervisory jurisdictiqn. Referring to the finding of the Labour
Court that the workman was discharging mainly ,clerical ·duties the ~--·

Learned Single Judge observed, "It is erroneous to presume, as was
apparently done· by the Additional Labour Court, that •merely
E because the respondent did not perform substantially supervisory
functions, he must belong to the ,clerical category." This was an
unfair reading of the Labour Court's judgment. We have earlier
extracted the relevan{ findin,gs of the Labour Court. The Labour
Court not only found that the workman was not performing
supervisory functions but also expressly found that the workman
F was discharging duties of a clerical nature. The Division Bench
which affirmed the judgment of the Learned Single Judge also read
the judgment Qf the Labour Court in a similar unfair fa,shion
and observed." It is no doubt true 'that the Labour Court
held·that.the appellant's evidence showed that he .was doing mainly
G clerical work. As we read the order as a whole it appears that in
arriving at this conclusion .the Labour Court was greatly influenced
by the fact that the appellant was not employed in a supervisory
capacity.'' We have already pointed out that the Labour Court
did not infer that the appellant was discharging duties of a clerical
H nature from the mere circumstance that he was not discharging
supervisory functions. The Labour Court considere~ the entire
evidence and recorded a positive finding that the appellant was
D.P, MAEESEW.<RI r. ·DHEI ADMN. (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 955

discharging duties of a clerical nature. The finding was distinct from
the finding.that the appellant was not discharging supervisory func- A
tion as claimed by the company. We would further like to add that
the circumstance that the appellant was not discharging supervisory
functions was itself a very strong circumstance from which it could be ·
legitimately inferred .that he was discharging duti~s of a clerical
nature. If the Labour'Court had.drawn such an inference it would ·u
·have been well justified in doing so. But, as we said, the Labour
Court considered the entire evidence and recorded a positive finding
that the workman was discharging duties of a clerical nature.
The Division Bench, we are sorry to say, did not consider
any of the evid~nce considered by the Labour Court and yet -
characterised the conclusion of the Labour Court as perverse. The .
only evidence which the Division Bench considered was that of
-' M.W.I Shri K.K. Sabh1rwal and under the impression that the
Labour Court had not considered the evidence of K.K.' Sabharwal,
the Division Bench observed. "The non-reference to the said
evidence while discuS>ing the point in issue, would· clearly vitiate the D
order to the Labour Court." This was again incorrect since we find
that the Labour Court did consider the evidence of M.W.I fully .

. Shri G.B. Pai, Learned Counsel for the company, drew our
attention to the qualifications of the appellant and certain letters E
written by him to the· Man.aging· Director and argued that ihe
qualifications and the letters indicated that the appellant was dis-
charging duties, not of a clerical nature but those of a ~enior execu-
tive closely in the confidence of the Managing Director. We are
enable to agree with Mr. Pai. First, we are not prepared to go behind
the finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court which certainly F
was based on relevant evidence and next, all that we can say from the
qualifications and the letters is th~t the appellant was occasionally'
deputed by t~e Managing Director to undertake some important
inissio!ls. Tbe ·question is '!hat were bis ·main duties and not
whether he was occasionally entrusted· with other work. On that G
question, the clear finding of the Labour Court is that he was mainly
discharging duties of a clerical nature.

We are clearly of the opinion that the High Court was totallv
unjustified in interfering with the order of the Labour Court unde~
H
Art. 226 of the Constitution. We set aside the judgments of the
Learned Single Judge and the Division l3ench of the Delhi High
956
.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983] 3 !.C.R.

Court, restore the order of the Additional Labour Court and direct
A. tli.e Additional Labour Court fo dispose of the reference within a
period of three months from the date of communication. of this
order to that Court. That appellant is entitled to his costs which we .
stipulate.at Rupees five thousand.

B H.L.c.· Appeal allowed.
J

' ''

'

'
' .