DILIP MANI DUBEY versus M/S SIEL LTD. & ANR.

DILIP MANI DUBEY versus M/S SIEL LTD. & ANR.

The High Court's factual finding that the workman did not have one year of continuous service under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act stands and cannot be reconsidered in Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction; payments made to the workman under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 during the litigation are not recoverable even after the Tribunal's award was set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Dilip Mani Dubey; Respondent: M/S SIEL Ltd.; Respondent: Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment on Special Leave Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Termination of Workman, Continuous Service Under S.6 N, Reinstatement With Back Wages, Section 17 B ID Act – Recoverability of Amounts, High Court's Writ Jurisdiction, Article 136 Appellate Review
Labour Law Constitutional Law Termination of Workman Continuous Service Under S.6 N Reinstatement With Back Wages Section 17 B ID Act – Recoverability of Amounts High Court's Writ Jurisdiction Article 136 Appellate Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dilip Mani Dubey

Appellant

M/S SIEL Ltd.

Respondent

Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment on Special Leave Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the workman was in continuous service for one year as required under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
  2. 2 Whether amount paid to workman under Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 during pendency is recoverable after setting aside award

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's factual finding that the workman did not have one year of continuous service under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act stands and cannot be reconsidered in Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction; payments made to the workman under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 during the litigation are not recoverable even after the Tribunal's award was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • No recovery from workman of any sums paid pursuant to Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 during litigation
  • Tribunal's award set aside, High Court judgment affirmed