In a writ petition challenging a Labour Court Part I Award, the High Court held that interference was not warranted as nearly two years had elapsed and the parties had acted upon the award, with the matter ripe for Part II trial; thus, the petition was dismissed.
The writ petition was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.572 OF 2005.
M/s. Pepsico India Holdings
Limited .. Petitioner.
v/s.
Krishnaprasad N. Sapkota & Ors. .. Respondents.
Mr.J.P.Cama with Mr. Sanjay Udeshi for the
petitioner.
Mr.P.M.Palshikar for respondent No.1
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
DATED :3RD MARCH, 2005.
P.C. :
1. As far back as on April 29, 2003, the Labour
Court in its part I Award held that while the
inquiry was consistent with the principles of
natural justice, the findings of the Inquiry Officer
were perverse. Accordingly, an opportunity was
given to the management to adduce evidence to
substantiate the charge of misconduct. Nearly two
years have elapsed since then and a challenge is now
preferred to the part I Award. The Court would not
in these facts be justified in exercising its
jurisdiction under Article 226, since after the
final Award of the Tribunal it would be open to the
petitioner to challenge the award, it it becomes
necessary, on all counts including the correctness
of the view of the Tribunal in the Part I award
dated April 29, 2003. That apart, it appears from
the roznama of the Tribunal which is placed on the
record by counsel for the first respondent that on
November 4, 2004 an adjournment was sought by the
petitioner on the ground that the witness of the
company was unable to remain present for personal
reasons. On November 30, 2004 the management
undertook to keep its witness present on the next
date of hearing. On January 24, 2005 an adjournment
was sought on the ground of counsel appearing for
the company. The parties have, acted upon the
impugned award dated April 29, 2003 and the matter
is now ripe for trial at the part II stage.
2. In the circumstances, the interference at
this stage is not called for. The Petition is
rejected.
(DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 against a labour court award after two years have elapsed and the parties have acted upon the award.
Whether the labour petition should be allowed at the part I award stage when the matter is ripe for part II trial.
Whether interference is called for when the petitioner could challenge the Tribunal's final award directly.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Pepsico India Holdings Limited
Krishnaprasad N. Sapkota
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court