Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.14 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13908/2013)

THE MANAGEMENT OF NARENDRA & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED  … APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS THE WORKMEN OF NARENDRA & COMPANY … RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T  

KURIAN, J.:   Leave granted.  

 2. Short  question  is  whether  the  respondents-workmen  are  entitled 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 2002. Though the  appellant  attacked  the  award  on  several  grounds,  the  learned  Single  Judge  declined  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  

REPORTABLE

Page 2

2

January, 1995. The learned Single Judge, in fact, had entered a  finding in that regard which reads as 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.”  

3. In appeal, the Division Bench took the view that apart  from the sole evidence of MW-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 view  that interest of justice 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 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 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

Page 3

3

1999  and  they  are  also  entitled  to  consequential  benefits  with  closure  compensation  as  well  as  gratuity upto that date. …”  

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 of MW-3 is itself part of the evidence 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 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.  Accordingly,  affidavit  dated  11.07.2013  was  filed  wherein  it  is  clearly  stated  that  the  industry became non-functional by the beginning of January, 1995  and remained defunct thereafter. In the counter affidavit filed  by the respondent-workmen also, there is nothing to establish

Page 4

4

that the industry was functioning thereafter.  

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.  

7. The appeal is partly allowed as above. There shall be no  order as to costs.                                           

………………………………………………J.           (KURIAN JOSEPH)

…………………………………………………………J.          (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

New Delhi; JANUARY 4, 2016.