Page 1

                                                                 1                                                                   

C.A. No. 10856 of 2010 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

Page 2

                                                                 2                                                                   

C.A. No. 10856 of 2010 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

Page 3

                                                                 3                                                                   

C.A. No. 10856 of 2010 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.

Page 4

                                                                 4                                                                   

C.A. No. 10856 of 2010 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

Page 5

                                                                 5                                                                   

C.A. No. 10856 of 2010 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.

Page 6

                                                                 6                                                                   

C.A. No. 10856 of 2010

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

Page 7

                                                                 7                                                                   

C.A. No. 10856 of 2010 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

Page 8

                                                                 8                                                                   

C.A. No. 10856 of 2010 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

Page 9

                                                                 9                                                                   

C.A. No. 10856 of 2010 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

Page 10

                                                                 10  

C.A. No. 10856 of 2010 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

Page 11

                                                                 11  

C.A. No. 10856 of 2010 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.

Page 12

                                                                 12  

C.A. No. 10856 of 2010

19. Interlocutory Application No. 1 filed in  

this appeal is disposed of.  

                   …………………………………………………………………J.                [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

                                                                        ………………………………………………………………J.        [C. NAGAPPAN]  

New Delhi,                                  November 27, 2014

Page 13

                                                                 13  

C.A. No. 10856 of 2010

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)