CIMCO BIRLA LTD. Vs. ROWENA LEWIS
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 10856 of 2010, Judgment Date: Nov 27, 2014
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10856 OF 2010
CIMCO BIRLA LTD. .........APPELLANT
Vs.
ROWENA LEWIS .........RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.
The appellant-employer has questioned the correctness of the impugned
judgment and order dated 29.1.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.28316 of 2009 in affirming the judgment
and order dated 15.6.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ
Petition (C) No.3135 of 2009 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the
Writ Petition. The writ petition was filed by the appellant-employer herein
against the order dated 16.4.2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in
complaint (ULP) No.588 of 1996 filed by the respondent-workman.
2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are stated as under :-
The respondent-workman filed the complaint (ULP) No. 339 of 1987 before
the Labour Court, Mumbai under the provisions of the Maharashtra
Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act,
1971 ("the Act" in short) questioning the legality of the order of his
termination from service and alleging that it amounts to an unfair labour
practice by the appellant and prayed for setting aside the same and passing
an award of reinstatement and continuity of service with full back wages.
3. The Labour Court vide its award dated 25.3.1996 found the appellant
guilty of unfair labour practice under Items 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of
Schedule IV of the Act, and allowed the said complaint directing the
appellant to reinstate the respondent with full back wages and continuity
of service.
4. Against the said award, the appellant filed Revision Application No.
72 of 1996 before the Industrial Court which was rejected vide order dated
8.10.1996
5. Being aggrieved of the said award, the appellant filed Writ Petition
(C) No. 6064 of 1996 before the High Court and the same was dismissed by
the High Court on 2.4.2004 for default.
6. For restoration of the Writ Petition (C) No.6064 of 1996 the
appellant filed Civil Application NO. 1104 of 2009 and the same was also
dismissed vide order dated 23.6.2010.
7. The said order not being challenged by the appellant the award dated
25.3.1996 passed by the Labour Court in complaint (ULP) No. 339 of 1987 has
attained finality.
8. The said award passed in the complaint having not been implemented,
the second inning was initiated by the respondent-workman by filing a
Complaint No. (ULP) 588 of 1996 before the Industrial Court seeking for
implementation of the award dated 25.3.1996 passed by the Labour Court in
the Complaint (ULP) No. 339 of 1987.
9. The Industrial Court vide order dated 16.4.2007 allowed the Complaint
(ULP) No. 588 of 1996 and directed the appellant to comply with award dated
25.3.1996 of the Labour Court.
10. The appellant being aggrieved by the said order, filed Writ Petition
(C) No. 3135 of 2009 against the said order before the High Court urging
various grounds.
11. The learned single Judge vide order dated 15.6.2009 dismissed Writ
Petition (C) No. 3135 of 2009 after adverting to the factual aspects and
legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties and rightly rejected the
plea of alleged closure of appellant's Bombay Office by recording its
reasons which order was affirmed by the High Court in the earlier writ
petition proceedings, thereby the plea that Bombay Office of the appellant
was closed was not accepted and the same was concluded in the earlier round
of litigation between the parties.
12. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.6.2009, the appellant filed
Letters Patent Appeal No.28316 of 2009 before the Division Bench of High
Court. The Division Bench dismissed the said appeal vide its order dated
29.1.2010, after giving valid and cogent reasons at paragraph No. 4, of the
impugned judgment. The relevant portion of paragraph No. 4 is extracted
hereunder :-
"4......The learned single Judge while dismissing the petition has found
that the Industrial Court has given cogent and sound reasons for rejecting
the application for amendment of written statement. It is concurrently
found that though an opportunity was available for raising the plea at
earlier stage, the application for amendment was sought to be made at the
fag end of the complaint filed by the respondent for implementation of the
order passed in the earlier complaint. In any case, the issue before the
learned Industrial Court in complaint(ULP) No. 588 of 1996 was only with
regard to the implementation of the order dated 25.3.1996 in Complaint
(ULP) No. 339 of 1987 passed by the Labour Court."
13. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.1.2010 passed in the Letters Patent
Appeal, this appeal is filed by the appellant urging various legal grounds.
14. Having heard the learned counsel on behalf of both the parties, we
are of the view that the concluded lis between the parties with regard to
the wrongful termination of the respondent from services in the earlier
round of litigation and passing of an award of reinstatement with full
back wages and continuity of service from the date of termination till the
date of reinstatement since the said award was not deliberately implemented
by the appellant, therefore, the respondent-workman rightly approached the
Industrial Court by filing a complaint in the second round of litigation
seeking for implementation of the same. The award passed in favour of the
respondent by the Labour Court has attained finality, hence, the judgment
and orders passed by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the
High Court in not interfering with the order passed by the Industrial Court
dated 16.4.2007 in the complaint filed by the respondent for implementation
of the award by way of execution of the award do not call for interference
by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
15. This Court while granting leave in the said appeal passed the
following order on 6.12.2010 :-
"....Hearing expedited.
We have been informed that the respondent has since been reinstated. In
that view of the matter only direction with regard to the payment of back
wages shall remain stayed, subject to appellant's depositing in this Court
the balance amount of back wages within two months. As and when, the said
deposit is made, the same be put in a fixed deposit, initially, for a
period of one year."
In pursuant to the said interim order, it is stated on behalf of the
appellant that the amount is deposited in this Court and the same is kept
in fixed deposit initially for a period of one year and that came to be
extended from time to time. The respondent is at liberty to withdraw the
said amount including the interest earned thereon. The receipt of the said
back wages deposited shall be adjusted towards the back wages awarded by
the Industrial Court in its award and order dated 16.4.2007 passed in
Complaint (ULP) No. 588/1996 wherein the appellant was directed to
pay/deposit back wages with all attendant benefits up to date upon
deducting Rs.2,98,213/-, and to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum
in case of non compliance of the order within one month.
16. The appellant-employer has filed this appeal questioning the
correctness of the order dated 16.4.2007 passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 588
of 1996. The award passed by the Labour Court in the Complaint (ULP) No.
339 of 1987 has attained finality as the writ petition filed came to be
dismissed on 2.4.2004 for default and restoration of the aforesaid writ
petition also came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.6.2010 thereby the
award has attained finality.
17. The appellant-employer has been litigating and dragging the workman
from one court to another from 1987 till date which is nearly about 27
years. In this process the legitimate right of receiving the monetary
benefits awarded in favour of the respondent is being denied by the
appellant by taking untenable contentions thereby the respondent and her
family members have been put to great hardship and mental agony. Therefore,
it is a fit case for awarding the costs towards engaging the lawyers and
hardship which has been facing by the workman from 1987.
18. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following order :
(i) The appeal is devoid of merit as none of the grounds, urged are
tenable in law hence the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-
payable to the workman;
(ii) The appellant is directed to comply with the terms and conditions of
the order dated 16.4.2007 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP)
No. 588 of 1996 within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of
this order.
19. Interlocutory Application No. 1 filed in this appeal is disposed of.
...........................................................................J
. [V. GOPALA GOWDA]
........................................................................J.
[C. NAGAPPAN]
New Delhi,
November 27, 2014
ITEM NO.1A-For Judgment COURT NO.9 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 10856/2010
CIMCO BIRLA LTD. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ROWENA LEWIS Respondent(s)
Date : 27/11/2014 This appeal was called on for JUDGMENT today.
For Appellant(s)
Mr. Shiv Khorana,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Nirnimesh Dube,Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda pronounced the judgment of
the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.Nagappan.
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(VINOD KUMAR) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed Non-Reportable judgment is placed on the file)
For the Latest Updates
Join Now