2008 (7) TMI 968 - SC - Indian Laws

Intra-Court Appeals Dismissed: Writ Petitions, Claim Maintainability, Retirement Scheme Refund

RAMESH CHANDRA SANKLA ETC, ASHA RAM MALVIYA ETC., RATAN SINGH RATHORE & ORS., DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL & ORS. Versus VIKRAM CEMENT ETC. AND VIKRAM CEMENT Versus HEMANT KUMAR JAIN & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that intra-court appeals were not maintainable as the writ petitions were filed under Article 227, not Article 226. The Court ... Whether the application is barred by estoppel? Whether the application filed by the applicant can be heard under Sections 31(3), 61 and 62 of MPIR Act? Whether the application is time barred? Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of intra-court appeal.2. Maintainability of writ petitions.3. Maintainability of claim petitions.4. Voluntariness of the retirement scheme.5. Order to refund the amount received under the retirement scheme.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of Intra-Court Appeal:The Division Bench of the High Court held that intra-court appeals were not maintainable as the writ petitions were filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, which pertains to supervisory jurisdiction, not original jurisdiction under Article 226. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the nomenclature of the proceeding or reference to a particular Article is not final or conclusive. The substantial part of the order sought to be appealed against was under Article 227, thus intra-court appeals were not competent.2. Maintainability of Writ Petitions:The workmen argued that the writ petitions were barred by constructive res judicata and Order XXIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure since the Company had withdrawn a previous writ petition without obtaining leave to file a fresh one. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the withdrawal was due to practical difficulties and logistic problems raised by the High Court's Registry, and not an abandonment of the claim. The Company filed fresh petitions immediately after withdrawing the omnibus petition, indicating no intention to give up the claim.3. Maintainability of Claim Petitions:The Company contended that the claim petitions were not maintainable as the workmen had accepted voluntary retirement, severing the master-servant relationship. The Labour Court, Industrial Court, and the Single Judge of the High Court rejected this contention, noting that the issue involved mixed questions of law and fact, particularly whether the acceptance of the scheme was voluntary. The Supreme Court supported this view, emphasizing that all issues should generally be tried together, especially in industrial disputes where delay can jeopardize industrial peace.4. Voluntariness of the Retirement Scheme:The workmen claimed they were coerced into accepting the retirement scheme and did not receive full benefits. The Supreme Court refrained from expressing any opinion on this issue, as the claim petitions were still pending before the Labour Court. The Court directed the Labour Court to consider the matter on merits and pass an appropriate order in consonance with the law.5. Order to Refund the Amount:The Division Bench of the High Court directed the workmen to refund the amount received under the retirement scheme if they wanted to maintain their claim petitions. The Supreme Court upheld this direction, stating that the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is discretionary and equitable. The Court noted that the workmen could not retain the benefits of the scheme while challenging their retirement. The direction to refund the amount was seen as balancing equities and ensuring justice.Conclusion:The Supreme Court confirmed the Division Bench's order, extending the time for the workmen to refund the amount until December 31, 2008. The Labour Court was directed to proceed with the claim petitions only if the refund was made. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and all contentions remained open for consideration by the Labour Court. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.