Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Workman's Reinstatement

Dilip Mani Dubey Versus M/s SIEL Ltd. & Another

Dilip Mani Dubey Versus M/s SIEL Ltd. & Another - TMI Issues:
Appeal against High Court's judgment setting aside Industrial Tribunal's award and dismissal of review petition.

Analysis:
The appeals challenged the High Court's decision setting aside the Industrial Tribunal's award directing the reinstatement of the appellant (workman) with back wages. The main issue was whether the appellant had served continuously for one year as required under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Tribunal had ruled in favor of the appellant, but the High Court reversed this decision. The Supreme Court held that as the High Court's finding was a factual one, they could not re-examine it. The appellant argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction and should have upheld the Tribunal's award based on a specific case law. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the High Court's decision was based on a detailed examination of the facts and was not against any evidence or law.

The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of the amount already paid to the appellant by the employer during the proceedings. The High Court had directed that this amount, which was substantial, should not be recoverable from the appellant despite setting aside the Tribunal's award. The Supreme Court found this direction in line with established legal principles, citing previous judgments. They emphasized that the employer could not recover the amount paid to the workman even if the termination order was eventually upheld as legal. The appellant was advised to be satisfied with the amount received during the litigation, which was not challenged by the employer in the appeal.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them, upholding the High Court's decision to set aside the Industrial Tribunal's award. The Court emphasized that the factual findings of the High Court were binding and that the direction regarding the amount paid to the appellant was in accordance with legal precedents.