NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.2289 OF 2010

Tuticorin Port Democratic Staff Union                ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Tuticorin Port Trust            …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment

and order dated 05.11.2007 passed by the High Court

of Judicature at   Madras at Chennai in Writ Appeal

No.3865 of  2004 whereby the Division Bench of the

High Court allowed the writ appeal filed by the

respondent herein and set aside the judgment dated

1

17.06.2004 passed the Single Judge of the High Court

in W.P. No.10907 of 1998.

2. A few facts need  mention hereinbelow for the

disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point.

3. By impugned  order, the  Division  Bench  of the

High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent

herein and set aside the order dated 17.06.2004

passed by the Single Judge in W.P. No. 10907 of 1998

which was filed by the appellant herein.

4. The appellant­Union of workers filed a writ

petition (No.10907 of  1998)  against the respondent­

Tuticorin Port Trust and claimed a relief therein that

the employees, who are the members of the appellant

(Union) and working in the Canteen run by the

Tuticorin Port Trust  in their work premises are part

and parcel of the Port Trust and, therefore, these

employees are entitled to be absorbed and regularized

in the services of the Port Trust.

2

5. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the

appellant's (Union’s) writ petition and granted the

relief  claimed therein.  The Port  Trust felt  aggrieved

and filed intra court appeal before the Division Bench

in the High Court.  

6. By impugned order, the Division Bench allowed

the appeal, set aside the order of the Single Judge and

dismissed the appellant's writ petition, which has

given rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave

in this Court by the Union of the workers working in

the Canteen.

7. So, the short question, which arises for

consideration in this appeal,   is whether the  High

Court was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the

respondent­Port Trust.

8. Heard Mr. Trideep Pais, learned counsel for the

appellant­Union and Mr. R. Nedumaran, learned

counsel for the respondent­Trust.

3

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

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

inclined to allow the appeal and while setting aside the

orders passed by the Division Bench and also of the

Single Bench, remand the case to the writ court (Single

Judge) for deciding the writ petition filed by the

appellant­Union afresh on merits in accordance with

law.

10. In our considered opinion, the need to remand

the case is called for due to the reason that the

appellant  has  filed various documents  in  support  of

their appeal. The appellant filed these documents for

the first time in this appeal.  

11. In other words, though the writ court allowed the

writ petition and the Division Bench dismissed the writ

appeal resulting in passing conflicting orders, but the

respective Courts rendered both the decisions without

examining these documents.   In our view, these

4

documents are material for disposal of the writ petition

filed by the appellant.

12. It is for this reason,   we are of the view that the

matter has to be remitted to the writ court for deciding

the writ petition afresh on merits.  

13. In  view of the foregoing  discussion, the  appeal

succeeds  and is  accordingly  allowed.  The impugned

order is set aside. The case is remanded to the writ

court (Single Judge) for deciding  Writ Petition No.

10907/1998 filed by the appellant afresh on merits.

The parties are granted liberty to file all necessary

documents in support of their case including the one

filed in this appeal.

14. The  writ court  will then decide the  matter on

merits in accordance with law. Since we have formed

an opinion to remand the case to the  High Court

(Single Judge), we have not expressed any opinion on

the  merits of the controversy. The  High  Court  will,

therefore, decide the matter uninfluenced by any

5

observations  made in the impugned order and this

order.  

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

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

New Delhi; April 01, 2019

6