REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  4863­4866 OF 2022
M/s Mitra S.P. (P) Ltd. & Anr.                …Appellant(s)
Versus
Dhiren Kumar        …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
common judgment and order  passed by the High Court in
Writ   Appeal   Nos.   615/2021   and   617/2017   in   respective
Writ   Petition   Nos.   2955/2021   and   5271/2009,   the
Management has preferred the present appeals.  
2. The   respondent   –   workman   was   appointed   as   a   Junior
Supervisor   with   the   company’s   branch  at   Visakhapatnam.
1

While   he   was   working   at   Visakhapatnam,   he   was
transferred   to   Jharsuguda   in   State   of   Orissa   vide   order
dated   20.07.1997.   The   workman   instead   of   joining   at   the
place of transfer submitted a representation to the Director
requesting   for   transfer   to   Mangalore   in   Karnataka   State.
The same was not acceded to. Challenging the said order of
transfer, the workman filed O.S. No. 1602/1997. The Civil
Court   did   not   grant   any   relief   as   prayed   by   the   workman.
Thereafter, the workman  was relieved by  the branch office
at   Visakhapatnam   on   14.08.1997.   Though   the   said
relieving   order   was   received   by   the   workman,   he   neither
handed   over   the   charge   at   Visakhapatnam   nor   did   he
report   for   duty   at   Jharsuguda   office.   Therefore,   the
management  treated  him  as deemed  to have been relieved
w.e.f.   14.08.1997   from   Visakhapatnam   office.   Thereafter,
the   management   issued   a   show   cause   notice   dated
24.10.1997 to comply with the directions of transfer or else
disciplinary action would be initiated against the workman.
Thereafter,   the   workman   was   placed   under   suspension.
Domestic   enquiry   was   ordered.   The   enquiry   proceeded   ex­
parte.   Subsequently,   the   management   dismissed   the
2

workman   from   service   w.e.f.   15.09.1998.   Aggrieved   by   the
dismissal   order,   the   workman   filed   I.D.   No.   219/1998
before the Labour  Court. The Labour  Court  vide judgment
and   award   dated   23.10.2000   modified   the   order   of
dismissal  with   stoppage  of   one   increment   with   cumulative
effect   and   ordered   for   reinstatement   of   the   workman   into
service, with a direction to the workman to join at the place
of   his   transfer   i.e.,   at   Jharsuguda   within   a   period   of   one
month   from   the   date  of   receipt   of   the  order,   failing   which,
he   shall   not   be   entitled   to   the   reinstatement.   The   Labour
Court   also   further   directed   that   the   management   shall
consider   the   request   of   the   workman   for   retransfer   to
Visakhapatnam   or   Mangalore   after   the   workman   joins   at
his new station and that if the workman fails to report for
duty   at   Jharsuguda   within   one   month   he   shall   not   be
entitled   to   back   wages   or   continuity   of   service.   The
management   filed   W.P.   No.   2955/2001   before   the   learned
Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court.   On   22.02.2001   while
admitting   the   writ   petition,   the   learned   Single   Judge
granted   interim   suspension   of   the   order   of   the   Labour
Court.   Subsequently,   learned   Single   Judge   modified   the
3

said   interim   order   granting   interim   stay   subject   to   the
condition of the management complying with Section 17­B
of the Industrial Disputes Act.
2.1 It   is   the   case   on   behalf   of   the   workman   that   thereafter   he
reported at Jharsuguda but he was not permitted to join on
the ground that no instructions were received from the head
office.   Therefore,   the   workman   filed   an   application   under
Section   33(C)(2)   of   the   Industrial   Disputes   Act,   1947   (for
short “ID Act”) before the Labour Court for recovery of wages
from 01.01.1998 to 30.04.2005. The said application under
Section   33(C)(2)   of   the   ID   Act   came   to   be   dismissed   by   the
Labour Court on the ground that the workman did not go to
Jharsuguda   to   join   duty.   Aggrieved   by   the   same,   the
workman filed W.P. No. 5271/2009. Both the writ petitions,
one,   filed   by   the   management   against   the   judgment   and
award passed by the Labour Court and another, filed by the
workman challenging the order passed by the Labour Court
dismissing   the   application   under   Section   33(C)(2)   were
heard together. Before the learned Single Judge for the first
time   the   management   raised   the   issue   with   respect   to
territorial   jurisdiction   of   the   Labour   Court.   The   learned
4

Single   Judge   dismissed   the   writ   petition   preferred   by   the
management   by   observing   that   the   management   shall   not
be   permitted   to   raise   the   issue   with   respect   to   territorial
jurisdiction   for   the   first   time   before   the   High   Court.   At   the
same time, without any further discussion on merits on the
order   passed   by   the   Labour   Court   rejecting   the   application
under   Section   33(C)(2)   of   the   ID   Act,   the   learned   Single
Judge allowed Writ Petition No. 5271/2009 preferred by the
workman   and   set   aside   the   order   of   the   Labour   Court
rejecting the application under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act
–   M.P.   No.   43/2005   dated   16.12.2008.   The   learned   Single
Judge observed and held that the workman is entitled for all
the benefits in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal in I.D.
No. 219 of 1998 with all consequential benefits. 
2.2 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   common
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   of
the   High   Court   in   Writ   Petition   Nos.   2955/2001   and
5271/2009,   the   management   preferred   writ   appeals   before
the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court.   By   the   common
impugned   judgment   and   order,   the   Division   Bench   of   the
High   Court   has   dismissed   the   appeals   as   not   maintainable
5

by observing and holding that the writ petitions were under
Article   227   of   the   Constitution   of   India   and   therefore,   the
writ   appeals   before   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court
would not be maintainable. Hence, the present appeals.
        
3. We   have   heard   Mr.   Siddhartha   Dave,   learned   Senior
Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) and Mr. K.
Parameshwar, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the
respondent.
4. From  the judgment and order  passed by the learned Single
Judge,   it   appears   that   what   was   challenged   before   the
learned   Single   Judge   was   the   order   passed   by   the   Labour
Court rejecting the application under Section 33(C)(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 preferred by the workman as
well   as   the   original   award   passed   by   the   Labour   Court.
Learned   Single   Judge   passed   the   common   judgment   and
order   dismissing   the   writ   petition   preferred   by   the
Management   in   which   the   Management   challenged   the
original   judgment   and   award   passed   by   the   Labour   Court
and   allowed   the   writ   petition   preferred   by   the   workman
rejecting his Section 33(C)(2) application.
6

4.1 So far as challenge to the award passed by the Labour Court
by   the   Management   is   concerned,   from   the   judgment   and
order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge,   it   appears   that
there   was   only   one   submission   made   with   respect   to
territorial   jurisdiction   and   the   learned   Single   Judge
negatived   the   same.     Therefore,   so   far   as   the   order   passed
by   the   learned   Single   Judge   dismissing   the   writ   petition
preferred by the Management against the original judgment
and award by the Labour Court is concerned, the same does
not warrant any interference.  
4.2 However,  at   the   same  time,  while   allowing   the   writ   petition
preferred   by   the   workman   challenging   the   dismissal   of
application under Section 33(C)(2), from the order passed by
the   learned   Single   Judge   it   appears   that   there   is   no
discussion   at   all   on   the   order   passed   by   the   Labour   Court
rejecting   the   33(C)(2)   application   and   without   any
discussion   and/or   recording   any   specific   findings   on   the
merits of the order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the
33(C)(2)   application,   the   writ   petition   preferred   by   the
workman   has   been   allowed.     The   learned   Single   Judge
ought   to   have   considered   the   writ   petition   preferred   by   the
7

workman  on  merits  and  ought   to  have  given   some  findings
on the order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the 33(C)
(2) application.
5. Under   the   circumstances,   the   impugned   judgment   and
order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   insofar   as   allowing   the
Writ   Petition   No.   5271/2009   preferred   by   the   workman   is
concerned,   the   same   is   hereby   quashed   and   set   aside.   The
matter   is   remitted   back   to   the   learned   Single   Judge   to
decide   Writ   Petition   No.   5271/2009   afresh   in   accordance
with   law   and   on   its   own   merits   and   within   a   period   of   six
months   from   today.   Civil   Appeals   arising   out   of   the
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   in   Writ
Petition   No.   5271/2009   are   accordingly   allowed.   Civil
Appeals   arising   out   of   Writ   Petition   No.   2955/2001   stand
dismissed. No costs.    
The   Registry   is   directed   to   communicate   this   order   to
the Registry of the High Court forthwith.   All concerned are
directed   to   cooperate   the   learned   Single   Judge   in   early
disposal   of   the   writ   petition   and   within   the   time   stipulated
hereinabove. If the High Court is of the opinion that any  of
the   parties   is   not   cooperating,   it   will   be   open   for   the   High
8

Court to proceed further with the hearing of the writ petition
ex­parte by recording reasons. 
The present appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No
costs.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
AUGUST 04, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
9