Supreme Court Remands Industrial Dispute Case of Godrej & Boyce for Fresh Consideration

The case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. Engineering Workers’ Association & Ors. revolves around a long-standing industrial dispute concerning the employment status of 99 contract workers. The Supreme Court was called upon to review whether the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, and upheld by the Bombay High Court was justified.

After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Court emphasized that an error in the High Court’s judgment warranted a re-examination of the issues on merits.

Background of the Case

The dispute began when the Engineering Workers’ Association, representing contract workers engaged by Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd., raised concerns regarding their employment status. The workers contended that they were working through a contractor, M/s Mazda Services, but should be treated as regular employees of the company.

The Maharashtra Commissioner of Labour made an industrial reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Industrial Tribunal. The key question before the Tribunal was whether the company should absorb the 99 workers as permanent employees and pay them the same wages and benefits as regular workers.

Arguments by the Petitioners (Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.)

• The workers were engaged through a contractor and were not direct employees of the company.
• The reference made to the Industrial Tribunal was improperly worded and exceeded its scope.
• The Industrial Tribunal had overstepped its jurisdiction by directing the company to absorb the contract workers.

Arguments by the Respondents (Engineering Workers’ Association)

• The contract workers had been performing the same work as regular employees for years.
• The company was using the contractor as a device to deny regular employment benefits to the workers.
• The Tribunal was correct in directing the company to regularize the workers and provide them fair wages and benefits.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court found that a factual error in the High Court’s judgment required reconsideration of the case. The key rulings of the Court were:

• The High Court had mistakenly quoted the operative portion of the Industrial Tribunal’s award instead of the actual reference made to the Tribunal.
• This error influenced the High Court’s decision and warranted a fresh examination of the case.
• “Since the impugned order is based on an apparent mistake, we have no option but to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the High Court for reconsideration.”
• The High Court was directed to decide the case afresh without being influenced by its previous observations.

The Court observed:

“We set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court and remit the writ petitions for reconsideration on merits.”

Implementation of the Judgment

The Supreme Court directed the following steps to be taken:

• The High Court must reconsider the case on merits, addressing all legal and factual issues afresh.
• The High Court must dispose of the writ petitions within six months.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the principle that industrial disputes must be decided based on substantive issues rather than procedural errors. By remanding the case, the Supreme Court ensured that the employment rights of workers were fairly examined while allowing the employer to present its case afresh.

The ruling also highlights the importance of accuracy in judicial decision-making, as a factual mistake led to an unnecessary delay in resolving the dispute.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case ensures that industrial disputes are determined fairly and in accordance with legal principles. By remanding the matter for fresh consideration, the Court upheld the importance of a thorough judicial review and procedural fairness.

This ruling serves as a guiding precedent in employment law, emphasizing that judgments should be based on the correct interpretation of industrial references and evidence.

Petitioner Name: Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd..
Respondent Name: Engineering Workers’ Association & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Indu Malhotra.
Place Of Incident: Mumbai, Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 16-11-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Godrej & Boyce Manuf vs Engineering Workers’ Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 16-11-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Disciplinary Proceedings
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by Indu Malhotra
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category