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.

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