The Supreme Court of India through the Division Bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar expounded that, "High Court ought not to reappreciate evidence and substitute its own finding for that of the Tribunal, it would not be beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court in its power of judicial review to altogether eschew such a process".
Brief Facts
The matter pertains to charter demand raised by the Union in 2008 for 146 workmen (80 workmen engaged at Sewree establishment and 66 employed at Sion) seeking revision in wages along with certain allowances. The Tribunal partly relieved the Union employees, and the decision was challenged before the Bombay High Court, which in turn partly upheld the Tribunal’s award while holding that “there was no serious anomaly in the demands of the union allowed by the Tribunal.”
Contentions of the Union
It was argued that the workmen’s plea for parity with similarly situated units and claim for overtime allowances were not considered.
Contentions of the Employer
The Writ Court’s judgment was challenged for lacking jurisdiction of fact-finding exercise while testing the legality of an award.
Observations of the Court
The Court followed Supreme Court’s decisions in Unichem Laboratories Ltd. Vs. The Workmen, 1972 Latest Caselaw 62 SC, IEL Supervisors' Association Etc. Etc. Vs. Duncan Industries Ltd. & ANR., 2018 Latest Caselaw 148 SC and others to support the High Court’s jurisdiction to go into facts while examining the Tribunal's award.
The Court relied on French Motor Car Co., Limited Vs. Workmen, 1962 Latest Caselaw 311 SC and other cases to explain that “For revision of wages and other facilities, the standard criteria which is followed by the industrial adjudicator is to apply industry-cum-region test, which in substance implies that the prevailing pay and other allowances should be compared with equally placed or similarly situated industrial units in the same region. To determine comparability of units applying the industry-cum-region test, inter alia, the financial capacity of the employer would be a strong factor.”
The Apex Court reiterated that “though the High Court ought not to reappreciate evidence and substitute its own finding for that of the Tribunal, it would not be beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court in its power of judicial review to altogether eschew such a process.” The Bench further highlighted the ignorance of negative financial status of the employer company on the ground that the losses were miniscule.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as Tribunal’s award. The Bench further directed the Tribunal concerned to re-examine cases of both the parties and conclude the reference within 6 months.
Case Title: The VVF Ltd. Employees Union vs. M/S. VVF Limited & Anr.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No.s 2744 of 2023
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 239 SC
Coram: Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar
Advocates: Mr. Jamshed P. Cama, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-I, AOR; Mr. Prashant Pavaskar, Adv.; Mr. Supantha Sinha, Adv.; Mr. Aditya Jain - I, Adv.; Mr. Ankit Dhawan, Adv.; Mr. Sanjay Singhvi, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Bennet D' Costa, Adv.; Ms. Jignasha Pandya, Adv.; Mr. Nitin S. Tambwekar, Adv.; Mr. Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, AOR
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
