PRIVATE LIMITEDversusTHE WORKMEN OF NARENDRA & COMPANY

                         [2016] l S.C.R. 597



     THE MANAGEMENT OF NARENDRA & COMPANY                                A
                        PRIVATE LIMITED
                                  v.
        THE WORKMEN OF NARENDRA & COMPANY
                    (Civil Appeal No.14 of2016)                          B
                         JANUARY 4, 2016
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON :FALi NARIMAN, JJ.]
       Labour Laws - Retrenchment - Labour Court directed
reinstatement with 50% back wages from January 1995 till January         c
1999 - Single Judge of High Court upheld the award of
reinstatement, but limited the award of back wages to January 1995
in view of closure of the industry by the beginning of January 1995
- In intra-court appeal, Division Bench held that due to closure of
industry reinstatement was not possible - However, since it was not
                                                                         D
proved that the industry was not functional after January 1995, the
workmen were held entitled to back wages till January I 999 - On
appeal, held: It is proved that the industry was not functional after
January 1995, hence payment of back wages beyond January 1995
is not permissible - Order denying reinstatement is upheld.
                                                                         E
       Appeal - Intra- Court appeal - Power of appellate court -
To interfere with the finding of fact - Held: The appellate court
shall not disturb finding of fact, unless it reaches a conclusion that
the finding on fact is perverse - There should not be interference
merely because another view or better view is possible.
      Partly allowing the appeal, the Court                              F

       HELD: 1. Once the Single Judge came to the conclusion
that the industry was not functioning after January, 1995, there
was no justification in entering a different finding without any
further material before the Division Bench. The appellate Bench
ought to have noticed that the statement of MW-3 was itself part         G
of the evidence before the Labour Court. In an intra-court appeal,
on a finding of fact, unless the appellate Bench reaches a
conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it
shall not disturb the same. Merely _because another view or a
better view is possible, there should be no interference with or         H
                                 597
598            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] I S.C.R.



A     disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both
      sides agree for a fairer approach on relief. [para 4] [599-E-G]
            2. Appellant-Management has stated on oath that the
      industry became non-functional by the beginning of January, 1995
      and remained defunct thereafter. Respondent-workmen have
B     not been able to establish that the industry was functioning
      thereafter. Hence, the order for payment of back wages beyond
      January, 1995 is vacated, and in all the other aspects, the order
      passed by the Division Bench is retained. [paras 5-6] [600-A-B]
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURJSDICT!ON: Civil Appeal No. 14 of
c     2016
            From the Judgment and Order dated 03.01.2013 of the High Court
      of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 982 of 2008 (L-TER).
             K. K. Mani, T. Archna for the Appellant.
           Shubham Saxena, Rajiv Shukla, B. Ramana Murthy for the
D
      Respondent.
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             KURIAN, J.: I. Leave granted.
             2. Short question is whether the respondents-workmen are entitled
 E    to the back wages till the beginning of January, 1995 or till January,
      1999. The Labour Court, Bangalore by award dated 02.08.2002 directed
      reinstatement of the workmen with 50 per cent back wages. That award
      was challenged by the appellant before the High Court of Karnataka at
      Bangalore by judgment dated 14.03.2008 in Writ Petition No. 41489 of
 F    2002. Though the appellant attacked the award on several grounds, the
      learne:d Single Judge d~eclined to interfere with the award on
      reinstatement. However, taking note of the fact that the industry was
      virtually closed by the beginning of January, 1995, it was ordered that
      the award on back wages would be limited to January, 1995. The learned
      Single Judge, in fact, had entered a finding in that regard which reads as
 G    follows:
             "From the record it shows that the industry was functioning till
             the beginning of 1995 and the Union though has led the evidence
             but has not proved as to whether the industry was functioning
             thereafter or not."
 H
    MANAGEMENT OF NARENDRA & CO. P. LTD. v.                                    599
   WORKMEN OF NARENDRA & COMPANY (KURIAN, J.]

       3. In appeal, the Division Bench took the view that apait from the      A
sole evidence ofMW-3, there was no other evidence on record to prove
that the industry was not functional after January, 1995. However, there
was no dispute with regard to the fact that the industry was closed, and
therefore, reinstatement was not possible. In that background, without
any further material available on record, the Division Bench took the
                                                                               B
view that interest ofjustice would be met by extending the benefit of 50
per cent back wages upto the end of January, 1999 and consequential
benefits with closure compensation as well as gratuity upto that date.
We may extract the relevant consideration by the Division Bench in the
impugned judgment:
      " ... According to MW-3, the machines were operated only till the        c
      beginning of January, 1995. However, to substantiate that
      contention, there is no evidence on record. In the light of such
      evidence on record, it is not possible to record a categorical finding
      that the industry was closed in the year 1995 itself. Having regard
      to the fact that the industry was closed, the order of re-instatement    D
      has been set aside by the learned single Judge and the workmen
      were entitled to retrenchment compensation and only 50% back
      wages is awarded, we are of the view that justice would be met
      by extending the benefit of 50% back wages upto the end of
      January 1999 and they are also entitled to consequential benefits
      with closure compensation as well as gratuity upto that date .... "      E

       4. Once the learned Single Judge having seen the records and
come to the conclusion that the industry was not functioning after January,
1995, there is no justification in entering a different finding without any
further material before the Division Bench. The appellate bench ought
to have noticed that the statement ofMW-3 is itself part of the evidence       F
before the Labour Court. Be that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on
a finding of fact, unless the appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that
the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same.
Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should
be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single       G
Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.
      5. When the matter came up before this Court on 08.07.2013, the
Court directed the appellant to file an affidavit indicating the actual year
of closure of the industry so as to determine the question as to from
what date retrenchment compensation should be paid to the workmen.             H
600             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            (2016] l S.C.R.



A     Accordingly, affidavit dated 11.07.2013 was filed wherein it is clearly
      stated that the industry became non-functional by the h,-icinuing of January,
      1995 and remained defunct thereafter. In the coun(er affidavit filed by
      the respondent-workmen also, there is nothing to establish that the industry
      was functioning thereafter.
B            6. Hence, the order for payment of back wages beyond January,
      1995 is vacated, and in all the other aspects, the order passed by the
      Division Bench is retained. In case, the workmen have not been paid the
      benefits which they are entitled to, the same shall be paid within a period
      of three months from today, failing which, the respondent-workmen shall
      be entitled to interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum.
 c
             7. The appeal is partly allowed as above. There shall be no order
      as to costs.
      Kalpana ~· Tripathy                                     Appeal partly allowed.


D