Sunil Kumar Biswas v. Ordinance Factory Board & Ors.
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and ord er
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.4-6 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.4-6 herein approached the
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Calcutta against respondent
Nos.1-3 (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.4-6 which gave rise to filing of
the 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. 4-6 lies
in approaching the Central Government in making a referen ce 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 justi fied in
dismissing the OA and writ petition.
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.
SUNIL KUMAR BISWAS v. ORDINANCE FACTORY
BOARD & ORS.
9. In our opinion, the High Court was right in observing that the
remedy of the appellant and respondent Nos.4-6 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.4-6, we are also of the considere d view
that their remedy lies in getting their alleged dispute se ttled by the
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 entertai n 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.4-
6 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 Industri al Tribunal
uninfluenced by any observations made by the Tribunal, the High Court
and this Court in these proceedings.
14. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Ankit Gyan Appeal dismissed.