Madhya Pradesh High Court
Grasim Industries Limited vs Liyakat Ali on 9 October, 2017
W.P. No.6023/2017
W.P. No.6029/2017
W.P. No.6030/2017
W.P. No.6034/2017
W.P. No.6035/2017
W.P. No.6036/2017
W.P. No.6038/2017
W.P. No.6039/2017
W.P. No.5960/2017
W.P. No.6016/2017
W.P. No.6019/2017
W.P. No.6020/2017
W.P. No.6021/2017
W.P. No.6024/2017
W.P. No.6026/2017
09.10.2017
Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Senior Advocate with Shri D.K.
Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Dube, Advocate for the respondent.
Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Petition No.6023/2017 are narrated hereunder.
2. The petitioner before this court has filed the present writ petitions being aggrieved by order dated 23.8.2017, passed by the Industrial Tribunal.
3. A dispute has been referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. A preliminary objection was raised by the employer stating that the workman in question is not a workman keeping in view the statutory provisions as contained under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and another ground has been taken by the employer that after the superannuation the workman is no longer a workman and the question of referring a dispute under Section 10, does not arise, as Section 2(s) provides specific definition of workman. An application for deciding the aforesaid two issued as preliminary issues has been rejected by the Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 9.11.2016. The learned writ court by order dated 6.3.2017, set aside the order of the Industrial Tribunal and directed the learned Tribunal to decide the preliminary issue first and then shall be proceed ahead in the matter of reference. Relevant part of the order reads as under :-
"Keeping in view the joint prayer made by the parties, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The Tribunal is directed to answer the reference made by the appropriate Government u/S. 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. However, the Tribunal shall frame two preliminary issues as under :
(a) Whether the employee in question is a workmen or not, keeping in view the provisions as contained under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ?
(b) Whether after attaining the age of superannuation, can a reference be forwarded to the Industrial Tribunal in respect of an employee who is no longer an employee after superannuation and whether the same be adjudicated by the Tribunal or not, keeping in view the Standard Standing Orders as well as the statutory provisions as contained under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The parties shall be free to place all statutory provisions, all amendments made from time to time and the case law on the subject to assist the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall be deciding the preliminary issues first and then shall be proceeding ahead in the matter of Reference. It is needless to mention that the Tribunal shall decide the preliminary issues within a period of two months and shall decide the entire case within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 28/03/2017.
With the aforesaid, the present and the connected Writ Petitions stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be be placed in the record of connected Writ Petitions."
4. He submitted that in compliance to order dated 6.3.2017, the Industrial Tribunal shall decide the preliminary issues within a period of two months and shall decide the entire case within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
5. The learned Tribunal vide its order dated 12.7.2017 (Annexure P/7), pleased to list the case for consideration of preliminary issues No.1 and 2 and directed the petitioner to lead the evidence first on 23.8.2017. That in utter surprise, the learned Industrial Tribunal on 23.8.2017 has again passed the impugned order and directed both the parties to lead evidence on all issues (referred in order of reference and framed by Tribunal as preliminary issues No.1 and 2).
6. The sole contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid order dated 23.8.2017 is beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal has acceded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order and failed to see that the Industrial Dispute Act is a special court and industrial Tribunal is competent to take issues on preliminary issues as very clear in the case of (domestic enquiries).
7. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further drwn our attention towards the order dated 12.7.2017 and submits that thereafter the matter has been fixed for recording the statement of the petitioner on 23.8.2017, on that date, learned Industrial Tribunal, relying on the Full Bench decision of this court and the law laid down by the Apex court, directed both the parties to lead their evidence on all issues (referred in the order of reference and framed by this Tribunal as preliminary issues No.1 and 2). This part of the order dated 23.8.2017 passed by the Industrial Tribunal is contrary to the order dated 6.3.2017 (Annexure P/3) passed by this court.
8. He also submitted that the Industrial Dispute Act is a Special Act and all the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are not applicable except expressly provided under the Act and Rules. The order passed on 6.3.2017 is binding on the learned Tribunal and prays for setting aside the impugned order.
9. Per contra, Shri Amit Dube, learned counsel for respondent has submitted that the writ petition has been filed just to delay the proceeding and in view of the interim stay granted on 15.9.2017, the employs are suffering immensely and prayed that the learned Industrial Tribunal be directed to expedite the case.
10. Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that the learned Industrial Tribunal has acceded in its jurisdiction and committed material irregularity while passing the order dated 23.8.2017. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 23.8.2017 passed by the Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to proceed in the matter in terms of order dated 6.3.2017 and 12.7.2017 and decide the matter expeditiously, as early as possible, within a period of four months from 24.10.2017 or from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, which ever is earlier.
11. With the aforesaid, the writ petitions are allowed.
No orders as to costs.
(P.K. JAISWAL) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
SS/-