M/S MITRA S.P. (P) LTD. & ANR.versusDHIREN KUMAR

                         [2022] 6 S.C.R. 871                             871


                M/S MITRA S.P. (P) LTD. & ANR.                           A
                                  v.
                         DHIREN KUMAR
               (Civil Appeal Nos. 4863-4866 of 2022)
                         AUGUST 04, 2022                                 B
        [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
       Labour Laws – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.33(C)(2) –
Single Judge of High Court passed common judgment - dismissing
the writ petition preferred by the Management in which the
                                                                         C
Management challenged the original judgment and award passed
by the Labour Court and allowing the writ petition preferred by the
workman against the order of Labour Court rejecting his s.33(C)(2)
application – Held: So far as challenge to the award passed by the
Labour Court by the Management is concerned, there was only one
submission with respect to territorial jurisdiction and the Single       D
Judge negatived the same – The same does not warrant any
interference – However, at the same time, while allowing the writ
petition preferred by the workman, there was no discussion at all
by the Single Judge on the order passed by the Labour Court
rejecting the s.33(C)(2) application – The Single Judge ought to
                                                                         E
have given some findings on the order passed by the Labour Court
rejecting the s.33(C)(2) application – Under the circumstances, matter
remitted back to Single Judge of High Court to decide writ petition
preferred by the workman afresh, on merits.
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4863-
                                                                         F
4866 of 2022.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2022 of the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in Writ Appeal Nos.615 and 617 of 2021
and Order dated 28.12.2018 in Writ Petition Nos.2955 of 2001 and 5271
of 2009.
                                                                         G
     Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Dhananjaya Mishra, Ratinesh Rai,
Navneet Dogra, Ramendra Mohan Patnaik, Advs. for the Appellants.
     K. Parameshwar, Pai Amit, Abhiyudaya Vats, Advs. for the
Respondent.
                                                                         H
                                 871
872             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             M. R. SHAH, J.
            1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
      judgment and order passed by the High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.
      615/2021 and 617/2017 in respective Writ Petition Nos. 2955/2021 and
B     5271/2009, the Management has preferred the present appeals.
             2. The respondent – workman was appointed as a Junior
      Supervisor with the company’s branch at Visakhapatnam. While he was
      working at Visakhapatnam, he was transferred to Jharsuguda in State
      of Orissa vide order dated 20.07.1997. The workman instead of joining
C     at the place of transfer submitted a representation to the Director
      requesting for transfer to Mangalore in Karnataka State. The same was
      not acceded to. Challenging the said order of transfer, the workman
      filed O.S. No. 1602/1997. The Civil Court did not grant any relief as
      prayed by the workman. Thereafter, the workman was relieved by the
D     branch office at Visakhapatnam on 14.08.1997. Though the said relieving
      order was received by the workman, he neither handed over the charge
      at Visakhapatnam nor did he report for duty at Jharsuguda office.
      Therefore, the management treated him as deemed to have been relieved
      w.e.f. 14.08.1997 from Visakhapatnam office. Thereafter, the
      management issued a show cause notice dated 24.10.1997 to comply
E     with the directions of transfer or else disciplinary action would be initiated
      against the workman. Thereafter, the workman was placed under
      suspension. Domestic enquiry was ordered. The enquiry proceeded ex-
      parte. Subsequently, the management dismissed the workman from
      service w.e.f. 15.09.1998. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the workman
F     filed I.D. No. 219/1998 before the Labour Court. The Labour Court
      vide judgment and award dated 23.10.2000 modified the order of dismissal
      with stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and ordered for
      reinstatement of the workman into service, with a direction to the
      workman to join at the place of his transfer i.e., at Jharsuguda within a
      period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which,
G     he shall not be entitled to the reinstatement. The Labour Court also
      further directed that the management shall consider the request of the
      workman for retransfer to Visakhapatnam or Mangalore after the
      workman joins at his new station and that if the workman fails to report
      for duty at Jharsuguda within one month he shall not be entitled to back
H     wages or continuity of service. The management filed W.P. No. 2955/
     M/S MITRA S.P. (P) LTD. & ANR. v. DHIREN KUMAR                            873
                       [M. R. SHAH, J.]

2001 before the learned Single Judge of the High Court. On 22.02.2001          A
while admitting the writ petition, the learned Single Judge granted interim
suspension of the order of the Labour Court. Subsequently, learned Single
Judge modified the said interim order granting interim stay subject to the
condition of the management complying with Section 17-B of the
Industrial Disputes Act.
                                                                               B
       2.1 It is the case on behalf of the workman that thereafter he
reported at Jharsuguda but he was not permitted to join on the ground
that no instructions were received from the head office. Therefore, the
workman filed an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “ID Act”) before the Labour Court for
recovery of wages from 01.01.1998 to 30.04.2005. The said application          C
under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act came to be dismissed by the Labour
Court on the ground that the workman did not go to Jharsuguda to join
duty. Aggrieved by the same, the workman filed W.P. No. 5271/2009.
Both the writ petitions, one, filed by the management against the judgment
and award passed by the Labour Court and another, filed by the workman         D
challenging the order passed by the Labour Court dismissing the
application under Section 33(C)(2) were heard together. Before the
learned Single Judge for the first time the management raised the issue
with respect to territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The learned
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the management
by observing that the management shall not be permitted to raise the           E
issue with respect to territorial jurisdiction for the first time before the
High Court. At the same time, without any further discussion on merits
on the order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the application under
Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, the learned Single Judge allowed Writ
Petition No. 5271/2009 preferred by the workman and set aside the              F
order of the Labour Court rejecting the application under Section 33(C)(2)
of the ID Act – M.P. No. 43/2005 dated 16.12.2008. The learned Single
Judge observed and held that the workman is entitled for all the benefits
in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal in I.D. No. 219 of 1998 with all
consequential benefits.
                                                                               G
       2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment
and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ
Petition Nos. 2955/2001 and 5271/2009, the management preferred writ
appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. By the common
impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has
                                                                               H
874            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A     dismissed the appeals as not maintainable by observing and holding that
      the writ petitions were under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and
      therefore, the writ appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court
      would not be maintainable. Hence, the present appeals.
            3. We have heard Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned Senior Advocate,
B     appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) and Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned
      Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent.
             4. From the judgment and order passed by the learned Single
      Judge, it appears that what was challenged before the learned Single
      Judge was the order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the application
C     under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 preferred
      by the workman as well as the original award passed by the Labour
      Court. Learned Single Judge passed the common judgment and order
      dismissing the writ petition preferred by the Management in which the
      Management challenged the original judgment and award passed by the
      Labour Court and allowed the writ petition preferred by the workman
D     rejecting his Section 33(C)(2) application.
             4.1 So far as challenge to the award passed by the Labour Court
      by the Management is concerned, from the judgment and order passed
      by the learned Single Judge, it appears that there was only one submission
      made with respect to territorial jurisdiction and the learned Single Judge
E     negatived the same. Therefore, so far as the order passed by the learned
      Single Judge dismissing the writ petition preferred by the Management
      against the original judgment and award by the Labour Court is concerned,
      the same does not warrant any interference.
             4.2 However, at the same time, while allowing the writ petition
F     preferred by the workman challenging the dismissal of application under
      Section 33(C)(2), from the order passed by the learned Single Judge it
      appears that there is no discussion at all on the order passed by the
      Labour Court rejecting the 33(C)(2) application and without any
      discussion and/or recording any specific findings on the merits of the
G     order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the 33(C)(2) application, the
      writ petition preferred by the workman has been allowed. The learned
      Single Judge ought to have considered the writ petition preferred by the
      workman on merits and ought to have given some findings on the order
      passed by the Labour Court rejecting the 33(C)(2) application.

H
     M/S MITRA S.P. (P) LTD. & ANR. v. DHIREN KUMAR                              875
                       [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       5. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order               A
passed by the learned Single insofar as allowing the Writ Petition No.
5271/2009 preferred by the workman is concerned, the same is hereby
quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Single
Judge to decide Writ Petition No. 5271/2009 afresh in accordance with
law and on its own merits and within a period of six months from today.
                                                                                 B
Civil Appeals arising out of the judgment and order passed by the High
Court in Writ Petition No. 5271/2009 are accordingly allowed. Civil
Appeals arising out of Writ Petition No. 2955/2001 stand dismissed. No
costs.
       The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Registry
of the High Court forthwith. All concerned are directed to cooperate             C
the learned Single Judge in early disposal of the writ petition and within
the time stipulated hereinabove. If the High Court is of the opinion that
any of the parties is not cooperating, it will be open for the High Court to
proceed further with the hearing of the writ petition ex-parte by recording
reasons.                                                                         D
       The present appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.


Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                      Appeals disposed of.

                                                                                 E




                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H