REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL No.3290 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.4072 of 2016)

Sunil Kumar Biswas ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Ordinance Factory Board & Ors.     ….Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.  

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final

judgment and  order  dated  16.07.2015  passed  by

the High Court at Calcutta in WPCT No.82 of 2015

whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition

1

filed by the appellant and respondent Nos.4­6

herein.

3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the

disposal of the appeal, which involved a short point.

4. The appellant and respondent Nos.4­6 herein

approached the Central Administrative Tribunal

(CAT), Calcutta   against respondent Nos.1­3

(Ordinance Factory Board & Ors.) in OA No. 159 of

2013 praying therein for a relief that they have been

appointed by the Contractor to render their services

with the Ordinance Factory Board (respondent No.1

herein) which they have been doing from the last 25

years, therefore, they claimed a relief that their

services be regularized.

5. The Tribunal, by order dated 23.05.2013,

dismissed the OA filed by the appellant and

respondent Nos.4­6 which gave rise to filing of the

2

writ petition by them before the High Court at

Calcutta.  

6. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed

the writ  petition and held  that  the remedy of the

appellant and respondent Nos. 4­6   lies in

approaching the Central  Government  in making a

reference to the Industrial Tribunal under Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter

referred to as “ID Act”). It is against this dismissal of

the writ petition, the unsuccessful writ petitioners

felt aggrieved and have filed this appeal by way of

special leave in this Court.

7. So, the short question, which arises for

consideration in this appeal, is whether the

Tribunal and the High Court were justified in

dismissing the  OA and writ petition.

3

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

find no merit in this appeal.

9. In our  opinion, the  High Court  was  right in

observing that the remedy of the appellant and

respondent Nos.4­6 herein (writ petitioners) lies in

applying to the  Central  Government to  make an

industrial reference to the Industrial Tribunal under

Section 10 of   the ID Act in relation to the dispute

which has arisen between them but not to pursue

their remedy for adjudication of their grievance by

filing OA before the Tribunal or/and writ petition in

the High Court.

10. Having regard to the nature of the controversy

raised by the appellant and respondent Nos.4­6, we

are also of the considered view that  their remedy

lies in getting  their  alleged dispute settled by  the

4

Industrial Tribunal in a reference under Section 10

of ID Act.  

11. The reason is that such disputes once made

are required to be adjudicated on facts and the

evidence. The factual controversy cannot be

adjudicated in OA by the Tribunal or by the High

Court in a writ petition.  

12. We,   therefore,  find no good ground to take

any other view than the one taken by the  High

Court while declining to entertain the writ petition.

13. Needless to say, if the reference is eventually

made to the Industrial Tribunal at the instance of

the appellant and respondent Nos.4­6 by the

Central Government on their request under Section

10 of the ID Act and issue in question is gone into

on facts, the same shall then be decided strictly in

accordance with law by the Industrial Tribunal

uninfluenced by any observations made by the

5

Tribunal, the High Court and this  Court in these

proceedings.

14. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly

dismissed.             

                                    .………...................................J.                                    [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                       

    …...……..................................J.              [DINESH MAHESHWARI]

New Delhi; March 29, 2019

6