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)
Ordinance Factory Board & Ors. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
- Leave granted.
- 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
filed by the appellant and respondent Nos.46
- A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the
disposal of the appeal, which involved a short point.
- 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.
- 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
writ petition by them before the High Court at
- 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.
- 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.
- Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
find no merit in this appeal.
- 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.
- 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
Industrial Tribunal in a reference under Section 10
of ID Act.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
Tribunal, the High Court and this Court in these
- The appeal thus fails and is accordingly
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] ……………………………………….J.
March 29, 2019