RAMESH CHANDRA SANKLA ETC. versus VIKRAM CEMENT ETC.

RAMESH CHANDRA SANKLA ETC. versus VIKRAM CEMENT ETC.

Since the Single Judge decided the matter in exercise of superintendence under Article 227, intra-court appeal was not maintainable under the 2005 Act; Labour Court, Industrial Court, and Single Judge did not err in refusing to determine maintainability as a preliminary issue because all issues should be tried together; no abandonment or res judicata by mere withdrawal of composite writ petition due to practical reasons; employees required to refund VRS benefits to prosecute claims, and Labour Court to decide cases on merits.

Parties
Appellant: Ramesh Chandra Sankla; Respondent: Vikram Cement
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeals and Cross Appeal Against Division Bench Judgment of the High Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; order of Division Bench affirmed.
Legal Topics
Voluntary Retirement Scheme, Superintendence of High Court, Maintainability of Intra Court Appeal, Jurisdictional Fact, Withdrawal and Fresh Filing of Writ Petitions, Preliminary Issues in Industrial Adjudication
Service Law Labour Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Voluntary Retirement Scheme Superintendence of High Court Maintainability of Intra Court Appeal Jurisdictional Fact +2 more

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramesh Chandra Sankla

Appellant

Vikram Cement

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeals and Cross Appeal Against Division Bench Judgment of the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether intra-court appeal is maintainable from a single judge decision given in superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution as per MP Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005
  2. 2 Whether the workmen are required to refund the benefits received under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme to prosecute their claims before the Labour Court
  3. 3 Whether petitions are barred by res judicata or abandonment by virtue of withdrawal of writ petition without liberty to file afresh

Ratio Decidendi

Since the Single Judge decided the matter in exercise of superintendence under Article 227, intra-court appeal was not maintainable under the 2005 Act; Labour Court, Industrial Court, and Single Judge did not err in refusing to determine maintainability as a preliminary issue because all issues should be tried together; no abandonment or res judicata by mere withdrawal of composite writ petition due to practical reasons; employees required to refund VRS benefits to prosecute claims, and Labour Court to decide cases on merits.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; order of Division Bench affirmed.

Orders

  • Payment required to be refunded by applicant-employees by December 31, 2008 to prosecute claim petitions before the Labour Court.
  • Claim petitions will not proceed until refund is made; after the deadline, claim petitions of those defaulting will stand dismissed automatically.