Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The learned counsel for the employees/Unions pointed out that for over 15 years, employees who are victims of unfair labour practices have not secured any adjudication on the merits of their dispute, and employers are only interested in tiring out employees and wilting their resistance. Therefore, they urged this Bench to consider examining this crucial aspect of express or implied overruling, rather than proposing a reference to a larger Bench in this batch of matters.

11. The issue of express or implied overruling needs consideration. It is not as if we, as a coordinate bench of coequal strength, are called upon to sit in appeal over GlaxoSmithKline. That would certainly be impermissible. But, given the subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court , JUDGMENT-APP-585-2009+F(1).DOCX the issue of express or implied overruling does require consideration by this Bench because, if indeed GlaxoSmithKline is found to have been either expressly or impliedly overruled by any later Supreme Court ruling, then we would be obliged to follow the later decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject. No dispute was raised about this Bench's entitlement to examine whether there was such explicit or implicit overruling.

Conversely, the mere inclusion of language in a Court's opinion that "Case A is hereby overruled," if not supported by a holding to that effect, would not, in fact, result in the overruling of Case A. This is but a corollary of the larger notion that, with respect to precedent, a holding is binding, whereas dicta is not. See infra Part III.A. JUDGMENT-APP-585-2009+F(1).DOCX so32.

84. In the Indian context, a reference can usefully be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S E Graphites Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Telangana and Ors 33, on the aspect of implied overruling. In this case, the High Court dismissed the Appellant's writ petitions following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the High Court in Ankamma Trading Co. Vs Commissioner34, along with other decisions taking the same view. This was despite the Appellant pointing out to the High Court that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had impliedly overruled the decision in Ankamma Trading Co. in the case of Innovatives Systems Vs State of AP 35. However, the High Court did not accept this contention because in Innovatives Systems, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not expressly stated that it was overruling the decision in the case of Ankamma Trading Co.

86. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S E Graphites Pvt. Ltd. at paragraphs 10 and 11 made the following observations which, in our opinion, afford complete answers to the arguments urged on behalf of the employers on the aspect of the implied overruling of GlaxoSmithKline (supra):-

"10. Concededly, this Court was conscious of the decision in Ankamma Trading Co. In that, the judgment under challenge before it in the appeal concerned was founded on the view already taken by the coordinate Bench of the same High Court [including in Ankamma Trading Co.]. It has been so recorded by this Court, In that sense, the legal position expounded in Ankamma Trading Co., stood impliedly overruled, even though that decision has not been adverted to or expressly overruled by this Court.

161. For all the reasons stated above, we hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in GlaxoSmithKline and the decisions of the Learned Single Judges following such view stand impliedly overruled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nandram.

162. Since the decision of the learned Single Judge appealed against or the decisions of the Labour/Industrial Courts petitioned against in all these cases primarily follow the decision of the Division Bench in GlaxoSmithKline, which Nandram impliedly overrules, we see no reason to hesitate in reversing the view in those decisions. The writ petition No. 798/2008 is treated separately for reasons discussed later.