HIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR.versusHIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ UNION & ANR.

                 [2023] 14 S.C.R. 424 : 2023 INSC 799



                            CASE DETAILS
                     HIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR.
                                     v.
           HIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ UNION & ANR.
                     (Civil Appeal No. 8801 of 2012)
                            AUGUST 17, 2023
           [HIMA KOHLI AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
                             HEADNOTES
      Issue for consideration: The stand taken by the appellants-
Management was that in its establishment, there were more than 100
workmen, hence, reference of a dispute to the Labour Court was without
jurisdiction and consequently, any award passed by the Labour Court was not
sustainable, whether the stand taken by the appellants-Management justified.
      Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Earlier, High Court had granted
liberty for correction of factual error to substantiate that there were
more than 100 workmen and the appellant could place on record the
documents – Pursuant thereto, the Labour Court admitted application
of appellant for submitting documents by order dated 30.06.2010 – The
objection raised by the respondents-workmen was dismissed by order
12.08.2010 and application to summon official witnesses by appellants
was allowed – Writ petition by respondents-workmen – High Court
set aside the said three orders (30.06.2010, 12.08.2010 and 06.10.2010)
passed by the Labour Court – Propriety:
      Held: As the number of workmen employed in the establishment has
a direct relation with the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or the Industrial
Tribunal to deal with the matter, it would be appropriate to refer to the
material which was placed on record by the appellants-Management before
the Labour Court, after the earlier writ petition filed by the appellants-
Management was disposed of with liberty to the Management to move for
correction of factual error – A perusal of the documents prima facie shows
that more than 100 workmen were employed by the appellants-Management
from 1999-2000 to 2009-2010 – An application was filed by the respondents-

                                    424
HIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR. v. HIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ 425
                   UNION & ANR.

workmen on 09.10.2001 with the appellants-Management raising certain
demands – It was on the basis thereof that, reference was made to the Labour
Court by the Labour Commissioner – The record showing that the appellants-
Management was employing more than 100 workmen, was available and
was also a part of the earlier proceedings before the Labour Commissioner
– On facts, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Labour Court, as the
material permitted to be placed on record will go to the root of the case in
determining the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate the matter –
Thus, matter is remitted back to the Labour Court and appellant-management
is permitted to lead evidence to substantiate that they were employing more
than 100 workmen during relevant period – The impugned order passed by
the High Court and the three orders passed by the Labour Court set aside.
[Paras 16, 17, 20, 22, 23]
     Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Whether a matter can be remitted
back to the Labour Court for a decision afresh:
     Held: Liberty was given by the Supreme Court in Santhosh Bansi
Mahajan’s case to file the said document before the Labour Court and the
matter was remitted back to the Labour Court to be decided afresh. [Para 21]
       LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
     Santhosh Bansi Mahajan v. State Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh
and others, (1984) Supp. SCC 193; Bundi Zila Petrol Pump Dealers
Association, Bundi v. Sanyojak Bundi Zila Petrol Mazdoor Sangh (BMS),
(2019) 5 SCC 337 : [2019] 2 SCR 717 – referred to.
       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.8801 of 2012.
    From the Judgment and Order dated 11.05.2011 of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore in WP No.824 of 2011.
     Appearances:
     S. Hariharan, Vikash Singh, Advs. for the Appellants.
    Sunil Kumar Jain, Ms. Rashika Swarup, Sunny Choudhary, Sandeep
Sharma, Karan Bishnoi, Advs. for the Respondents.
426             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2023] 14 S.C.R.



         JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

                                   JUDGMENT

       RAJESH BINDAL, J.
      1. Aggrieved against the order1 passed by the High Court2 in the Writ
Petition3 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Management
is before this Court in appeal. Vide the aforesaid order1, three orders4, passed
by the Labour Court5, were set aside with a direction to the Labour Court
to allow the appellants-Management to exercise liberty only in relation to
correction of factual errors in the order.
       FACTS
     2. The facts of the case, as evident from the record, are that the
appellants-Management moved an application under Section 25-N of the
ID Act6 seeking permission to retrench 45 workmen w.e.f. 01.12.2000.
However, vide order dated 16.10.2000, the permission was declined by
the Labour Commissioner and the application filed by the appellants-
Management was rejected. Thereafter, the workmen raised certain demands
on 09.10.2001, seeking increase of wages and other facilities. The Labour
Commissioner referred the dispute to the Labour Court vide order dated
07.08.2002. Statement of claim was filed by the respondents-workmen before
the Labour Court to which reply was filed by the appellant-Management.
Finally, the matter was adjudicated. The claim made by the respondents-
workmen was accepted by the Labour Court vide Award dated 10.02.2006.
     2.1 Challenging the aforesaid Award, the appellants-Management
filed a Writ Petition7 before the High Court2. As an interim measure, the
High Court, while issuing notice, stayed the operation of the Impugned
Award dated 10.02.2006 of the Labour Court. Plea raised by the appellants-


1     Dated 11.05.2011.
2     High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore.
3     WP (C) No. 824 of 2011.
4     Dated 30.06.2010, 12.08.2010 and 06.10.2010 passed by the Labour Court.
5     Labour Court, Dewas, Madhya Pradesh.
6     The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’)
7     W.P. No.2375 (S) of 2006 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore.
HIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR. v. HIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ 427
         UNION & ANR. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

Management before the High Court was that there being more than 100
workmen in the factory of the appellants, reference under Section 10 of the
ID Act6 should have been made by the Labour Commissioner only to the
Industrial Tribunal. Vide order dated 06.01.2010, the High Court accepted
the Writ Petition filed by the appellants-Management. The prayer made was
that there being a jurisdictional error with reference to the court to which
the reference could be made, as the appellants-Management had more than
100 workmen, liberty be granted to the appellants to approach the Labour
Court by filing an appropriate application for correction of the factual error.
Respondent No.1 being aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court
filed a Review Petition8 before the High Court. However, the same was
dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 12.03.2010.
      2.2 The appellants-Management filed an application before the Labour
Court for correction of the factual error annexing documents, showing that
even in the returns filed with the Employees State Insurance Corporation
and Life Insurance Corporation etc., more than 100 workmen were shown
to be employed with the appellants-Management. Reply was filed by the
respondents-workmen to the application, objecting to the documents placed
on record by the appellants-Management along with the application for
correction of the error. The Labour Court vide order dated 30.06.2010 dealing
with the objections raised by the respondents-workmen, issued notice in the
application and allowed the appellants-Management to file the documents
in support of its claim.
      2.3 Again, objection was raised by the respondents-workmen regarding
maintainability of the application before the Labour Court. However, the
same was also rejected vide order dated 12.08.2010. Subsequently, an
application was filed by the appellants-Management for summoning of
official records and the witnesses. The same was allowed by the Labour
Court vide order dated 06.10.2010. At that stage, the objection, raised by
the respondents-workmen for summoning of witnesses, was rejected as they
would have a clear opportunity of cross-examining them.
     2.4 Being aggrieved, the respondents-workmen challenged the
aforesaid three orders of the Labour Court before the High Court by filing


8   Review Petition No.46 of 2010.
428          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 14 S.C.R.


a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order
passed therein by the High Court has been challenged in the present appeal.
      ARGUMENTS
      3. Learned counsel for the appellants-Management submitted that
a preliminary objection was raised by the appellants before the Labour
Court regarding maintainability of the reference since the appellants-
Management all along had employed more than 100 workmen. In view of
Section 10 of the ID Act, in cases where claim is made regarding wages and
allowances as provided in the Third Schedule of the ID Act with reference
to an establishment where there are more than 100 workmen employed, the
reference of dispute has to be made to the Industrial Tribunal. In the case
in hand, ignoring this fact, the Labour Commissioner made the reference
of dispute to the Labour Court. The Labour Court while adjudicating
the claims ignored the admission on the part of the representative of the
respondents-workmen that there were more than 100 workmen employed
with the appellants-Management. The appellants-Management had placed
before the High Court clinching material to establish that there were
more than 100 workmen in the establishment, which was in the form of
certificates from the Employees State Insurance Corporation and Life
Insurance Corporation from whom the appellants-Management had taken
a group gratuity policy for its workmen. Though there was some lapse in
leading evidence before the Labour Court, the same was on account of the
fact that in his cross-examination, the representative of the respondents-
workmen had admitted that there were more than 100 workmen employed
in the establishment.
      3.1 He further submitted that as it was an issue of jurisdiction of the
Labour Court to adjudicate the matter, the High Court had given liberty to
the appellants-Management to approach the Labour Court for correction
of the error. The Review Petition8 filed by the respondents-workmen was
dismissed by the High Court. Even the objections raised by the respondents-
workmen before the Labour Court were rejected, while noticing that the
workmen would have full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses,
being summoned by the appellants-Management to establish that there were
more than 100 workmen employed in the establishment. The evidence was
clinching as it had to come from Employees State Insurance Corporation
HIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR. v. HIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ 429
         UNION & ANR. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

and Life Insurance Corporation. However, when the respondents-workmen
challenged the aforesaid orders before the High Court, the plea of the
respondents was accepted. It was observed that the appellants-Management
shall not be entitled to lead evidence to disturb the finding recorded by the
Labour Court as liberty was granted to the appellants-Management only for
correction of the factual error and the same shall be limited in terms of Rule
28 of the Rules9 or at the most, Section 152 of the Code10. The argument
was that order as such was not assailed on merits.
      3.2 Submission is that the documents sought to be produced by
the appellants-Management go to the root of the case on the question of
jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate the matter. When the same
were placed before the High Court by the appellants-Management while
challenging the Award of the Labour Court dated 10.02.2006 being prima
facie satisfied with the argument, liberty was granted to move an application
before the Labour Court for correction of the factual error. In case, correction
of factual error needs some evidence, that would be permitted.
      3.3. In support of the arguments that the court can remand the matter
to the Labour Court, reliance was placed on the judgments of this Court in
Santhosh Bansi Mahajan v. State Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh
and others, (1984) Supp. SCC 193 and Bundi Zila Petrol Pump Dealers
Association, Bundi v. Sanyojak Bundi Zila Petrol Mazdoor Sangh
(BMS), (2019) 5 SCC 337.
      4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that it is too late to reopen the entire issue, nearly, after two decades. The
reference was made to the Labour Court on 07.08.2002. Many of the
workmen have already retired and some have even expired. Whatever
evidence was led by the appellants-Management, on the basis thereof,
finding was recorded that the appellants-Management had not employed
more than 100 workmen and the Labour Court had jurisdiction to deal with
the questions referred. Mere admission by one of the representatives of the
respondents-workmen, who appeared before the Labour Court, would not



9 The Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957
10 Civil Procedure Code, 1908
430           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 14 S.C.R.


discharge the onus cast on the appellants-Management to prove that it had
employed more than 100 workmen. The evidence sought to be produced
now is in the form of returns filed, after the reference was made. The prayer
is for dismissal of the appeal.
     5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant record.
      DISCUSSION
     6. Before we deal with the merit of the controversy in issue, we deem it
appropriate to discuss the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and the Industrial
Tribunal for reference of a dispute. It is for the reason that the claim of the
appellants-Management is that it employed more than 100 workmen.
      7. Section 10(1) of the ID Act inter alia provides that where appropriate
Government is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is
apprehended, it may, by an order in writing, refer the dispute to the ‘Labour
Court’ if it relates to the issues specified in the Second Schedule. Where the
matter relates to the issues specified in the Third Schedule, the dispute is
to be referred to a Labour Court, if the dispute is not likely to affect more
than 100 workmen. Otherwise,Section 10(1)(d) of the ID Act provides that
the disputes as enumerated in the Third Schedule are to be referred to a
Tribunal. The aforesaid two terms have been defined in Section 2(kkb) and
2(r) of the ID Act, respectively. Relevant provisions of Section 10(1) of the
ID Act are extracted below:
      “10. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals:-
      (1) Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial
      dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing-
           (a) refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement
           thereof; or
           (b) refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant
           to the dispute to a Court for inquiry; or
           (c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with,
           or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified
           in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication; or
HIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR. v. HIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ 431
         UNION & ANR. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

        (d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to connected with, or
        relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified
        in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for
        adjudication:
               Provided that where the dispute relates to any matter
        specified in the Third schedule and is not likely to affect more
        than one hundred workmen, the appropriate Government may,
        if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court under
        clause (c)”
   8. The Second and the Third Schedules attached to the ID Act required
   for proper appreciation of the arguments, are extracted below:
                     “THE SECOND SCHEDULE
   MATTERS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF LABOUR
   COURTS
   1.   The propriety or legality of an order passed by an employer under
        the standing orders;
   2.   The application and interpretation of standing orders;
   3.   Discharge or dismissal of workmen including reinstatement of,
        or grant of relief to, workmen wrongfully dismissed;
   4.   Withdrawal of any customary concession of privilege;
   5.   Illegality or otherwise of a strike or lock-out; and
   6.   All matters other than those specified in the Third Schedule.
                       THE THIRD SCHEDULE
    MATTERS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF INDUSTRIAL
                     TRIBUNALS
   1.   Wages, including the period and mode of payment;
   2.   Compensatory and other allowances;
   3.   Hours of work and rest intervals;
   4.   Leave with wages and holidays;
432          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 14 S.C.R.


      5.   Bonus, profit sharing, provident fund and gratuity;
      6.   Shift working otherwise than in accordance with standing orders;
      7.   Classification by grades;
      8.   Rules of discipline;
      9.   Rationalisation;
      10. Retrenchment of workmen and closure of establishment; and
           Any other matter that may be prescribed.”
      9. A perusal of the aforesaid Schedules shows that the matters,
enumerated in the Second Schedule, are falling in the jurisdiction of the
Labour Court. Whereas the matters, as mentioned in the Third Schedule, are
within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal with the only exception that
for dispute provided in the Third Schedule; if not more than 100 workmen
are affected, reference is to be made to the Labour Court.
      10. In the case in hand, reference of the following disputes was made
by the Labour Commissioner, Indore to the Labour Court, Dewas vide order
dated 07.08.2002:
      “1. Whether it is justified to grant wage increase to the workmen
      working in the Company? If so, what should be the plan for the same?
      2. Whether according to the ability, seniority and experience, grading
      has to be made and whether it would be justified to decide a policy
      for wage fixation according to these grades? If so, what should be the
      structure of such policy?
      3. Whether it is justified to give Dearness Allowance to the workmen?
      If so, what should be the quantum of the same?
      4. Whether it is justified to increase the House Rent Allowance,
      Conveyance Allowance and Washing Allowance of the workmen of
      the Company? If so, what should be the plan for the same?
      5. Whether it is justified to department-wise classify the number of
      permanent workmen? If so, what should be the plan for the same?
HIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR. v. HIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ 433
         UNION & ANR. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

     6. Whether it is justified to provide Education Allowance, Canteen
     Allowance, and Night Allowance? If so, what should be the plan for
     the same?
     7. Whether it is justified to restart Attendance Allowance to the
     workmen of the Company as was given to them earlier, to increase
     rate of the same and to compensate them for the discontinued period?
     If so, what should be the plan for the same?
     8. As provided earlier, whether it is justified to allow earned leaves
     to a workman even if he has worked for less than 240 days in a year?
     9. Whether in past, the weekly off was not adjusted in allowing the
     earned leaves? What should be the justification of restarting the same
     arrangement?
     10. Whether the other benefits as provided by ISO certified Companies
     are justified to be provided to the workmen of this Company?”
      11. A perusal of the aforesaid issues which were referred by the Labour
Commissioner to the Labour Court shows that these pertain primarily to
the wages and allowances which exclusively fall within the jurisdiction of
the Industrial Tribunal, in case more than 100 workmen are to be affected.
      12. In this light, the stand taken by the appellants-Management is that
in the establishment of the appellants-Management, there were more than
100 workmen, hence, reference of the dispute to the Labour Court was
without jurisdiction and consequently, any award passed by the Labour
Court is not sustainable. When the matter was being adjudicated by the
Labour Court, the appellants-Management raised a preliminary objection
regarding its jurisdiction, for which an additional issue was also framed,
which reads as under:
     “1. Whether this court has not got jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate
     this matter since there being employed more than 100 workmen in the
     factory of Party on Second Part?”
      13. Some evidence was led by the appellants-Management in terms
of which from the year 2001 to 2005, there were 92 workmen employed
in the establishment. However, there was categoric admission made in the
cross-examination of Kishori Lal Sharma, who appeared as a witness on
434          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 14 S.C.R.


behalf of the workmen, stating that there are more than 100 workmen in
the factory but in their Union only 85 of them are members. The Labour
Court found that there being less than 100 workmen, the dispute was rightly
referred to the Labour Court. Final Award was passed on 10.02.2006. The
same was challenged by the appellants-Management before the High Court
by filing the writ petition7. The argument raised before the High Court was
that there was a jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Labour Court
as the Management had a strength of more than 100 workmen. It was prayed
that the writ petition may be disposed of with liberty to the Management to
approach the Labour Court for correction of factual error. The writ petition
was disposed of vide order dated 06.01.2010 with liberty as prayed for.
Review Petition8 was filed by the respondents-workmen against the aforesaid
order. However, the same was dismissed on 12.03.2010. Thereafter, the
matter was taken up before the Labour Court.
      14. The appellants-Management filed an application before the Labour
Court bearing I.A. No.1/2010 submitting various documents showing that
the Management had employed more than 100 workmen from 1999-2000 till
2009-2010. These were in the form of the documents from Employees State
Insurance Corporation, Life Insurance Corporation, Employees Provident
Fund Organisation etc. After hearing counsel for both the parties, the Labour
Court vide order 30.06.2010, admitted the application and permission was
granted for annexing the documents. It was noticed in the order that in case
the appellants-Management employed more than 100 workmen, the Labour
Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issue. As the High Court had
granted liberty for correction of factual error to substantiate that there were
more than 100 workmen, the appellant could place on record the documents.
The objections, raised by the respondents-workmen, were dismissed by a
separate order dated 12.08.2010. Thereafter, vide order dated 06.10.2010,
the application (I.A. No.2/2010) filed by the appellants-Management seeking
permission to summon the official witnesses to prove the documents placed
on record was allowed with the observation that no prejudice as such would
be caused to the respondents-workmen, as they will have the opportunity
to cross-examine the witnesses.
      15. A Writ Petition was filed by the respondents-workmen, to challenge
the aforesaid orders, which was allowed by the High Court while setting
HIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR. v. HIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ 435
         UNION & ANR. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

aside the orders dated 30.06.2010, 12.08.2010 and 06.10.2010 passed by
the Labour Court.
      16. As the number of workmen employed in the establishment has a
direct relation with the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or the Industrial
Tribunal to deal with the matter, we deem it appropriate to refer to the
material which was placed on record by the appellants-Management before
the Labour Court, after the earlier Writ Petition filed by the appellants-
Management was disposed of with liberty to the Management to move for
correction of factual error. The documents are as under:
     (i) A certificate dated 26.05.2010 issued by the Employees State
     Insurance Corporation giving details of the number of employees
     shown in the returns filed by the Management with the Corporation
     from the year 1999-2000 to 2009-2010.
     (ii) A certificate dated 07.06.2010 issued by the Life Insurance
     Corporation giving details of the number of workmen for which
     contribution was being made on yearly basis for the workmen under the
     Group Gratuity Policy. The details pertain to the years 2000 to 2009.
     (iii) A certificate dated 07.06.2010 of the Management showing the
     number of workmen for which returns were being filed with the
     Employees Provident Fund Organisation, for their contribution towards
     provident fund and family pension fund. The details pertain to the
     years 1999-2000 to 2009-2010.
     (iv) A certificate dated 07.06.2010 issued by the Life Insurance
     Corporation showing contribution on yearly basis for the workmen
     employed with the Management under Employee’s Deposit Linked
     Insurance. The details pertain to the years 2000 to 2009.
     (v) A certificate dated 07.06.2010 by the Management giving detail
     of the number of workmen who were paid bonus under the Payment
     of Bonus Act each year. The details pertain to the years 1999-2000
     to 2008-2009.
     17. A perusal of the aforesaid documents prima facie shows that more
than 100 workmen were employed by the appellants-Management from
1999-2000 to 2009-2010.
436          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 14 S.C.R.


      18. The reference in the case was made by the Labour Commissioner
to the Labour Court vide order dated 07.8.2002.
      19. Another important fact to be noticed here is that, when an
application was filed by the appellants-Management on 18.08.2000 under
Section 25-N of the ID Act seeking permission to retrench 45 workmen
w.e.f. 01.12.2000, the same was rejected by the Labour Commissioner,
Indore vide order dated 16.10.2000. In the aforesaid order, a statement of
year wise production and sales, and average workmen employed on a daily
basis has been extracted. It is from the year 1990-1991 till 1999-2000 for
completed years and for the months of April to August 2000. In all these
years, the average daily workmen employed were more than 100 except in
the year1999-2000, when these were shown to be 99.
      20. An application was filed by the respondents-workmen on
09.10.2001 with the appellants-Management raising certain demands. It was
on the basis thereof that, reference was made to the Labour Court by the
Labour Commissioner vide order dated 07.08.2002. Meaning thereby, that
the record showing that the appellants-Management was employing more
than 100 workmen, was available and was a part of the earlier proceedings
before the Labour Commissioner.
      21. On the issue as to whether a matter can be remitted back to the
Labour Court for a decision afresh, guidance is available from judgment of
this Court in Santhosh Bansi Mahajan’s case (supra). It was a case where
a document on which reliance was placed by the workmen was not placed
before the Labour Court when the matter was considered. It was placed
on record for the first time before this Court. Liberty was given by this
Court to file the said document before the Labour Court and the matter was
remitted back to the Labour Court to be decided afresh. Similar issue had
come up for decision before this Court in Bundi Zila Petrol Pump Dealers
Association’s case (supra) wherein an ex-parte Award was passed against
the Management. This Court, finding that there were sufficient reasons for
the absence of the Management before the Tribunal, set aside the Award
and the matter was remanded to the Industrial Tribunal giving liberty to the
appellant before this Court to file the written statement and lead evidence.
      22. In the case in hand as well on the facts, as noticed above, we find
that the matter needs to be re-examined by the Labour Court, as the material
HIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR. v. HIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ 437
         UNION & ANR. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

permitted to be placed on record will go to the root of the case in determining
the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate the matter. The material
sought to be relied upon by the appellants-Management to substantiate its
plea has been briefly referred to in paras 16 and 19 of this order.
      23. For the reasons, mentioned above, we find merit in the present
appeal. The same is accordingly allowed. The impugned order passed by the
High Court dated 11.05.2011 as well as the orders of the Labour Court dated
30.06.2010, 12.08.2010 and 06.10.2010, are set aside. The matter is remitted
back to the Labour Court, Dewas for adjudication afresh, after permitting
the appellants-Management to lead evidence to substantiate the plea that
they were employing more than 100 workmen during the relevant period.
Needless to add, that the respondents-workmen will also have an opportunity
to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the appellants-Management,
and also lead their own evidence, in case need so arises. Since the matter is
quite old, we direct the Labour Court, Dewas to dispose of the same within
a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
     24. The appellants-Management shall deposit costs quantified at
₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with the Labour Commissioner, Indore
within a period of six weeks, which shall be disbursed to the workmen
working with the appellants-Management, equally by directly transferring
the proportionate amounts in their bank accounts. Needful shall be
done within four weeks of deposit. Needless to add that the appellants/
Management shall cooperate in the process.
     25. We may clarify that while passing the above order, we have not
expressed any opinion on merits of the controversy.


Headnotes prepared by:                                           Appeal allowed.
Ankit Gyan