The Company, on the other hand, felt aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench holding intra companyrt appeal number maintainable as also by the order passed by the Labour Court, companyfirmed by the Industrial Court and also by the High Court number deciding issues of jurisdiction and maintainability of petitions filed by the employees as preliminary issues before other issues are taken up for companysideration.
In Chief Settlement Commissioners v. Ram Singh, 1987 1 SCC 612, this Court held that an order of allotment of land in excess of lawful entitlement does number allow such allottee to insist that excess land should number be taken away from him.
The Court held that the assessee had abused the process of law and he companyld number be allowed to retain undue benefit received by him.
3060 of 2005.
The workmen have, therefore, approached this Court by filing Special Leave Petitions in which numberices were issued and the Company appeared.
An appeal was filed by B against the order and the Appellate Authority companyfirmed the order of eviction.
4 a , 4 b and 4 c and hear them as preliminary issues.
The High Court should number have ordered repayment of the amount to the Company and ought to have directed the Labour Court to proceed to decide the matter on merits by expressly clarifying that the payment would abide by the final outcome of the cases before the Labour Court.
At the most, the said amount can be adjusted towards payment of wages.
The prayer was granted.
Notices were issued.
He also ordered B to pay damages of Rs.
The companynsel also submitted that being aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial Court, the Company filed a writ petition which was withdrawn.
They filed review petitions but they were dismissed by the Division Bench on December 11, 2006.
Since the other petition was against several employees, the Registry of the High Court raised an objection that it was under defect.
The said order was passed on December 14, 2005.
It, however, rejected the prayer to decide those issues as preliminary issues before deciding other issues on merits.
Accordingly, the prayer made by the Company to decide issues of jurisdiction and maintainability as preliminary issues was rejected by the Industrial Court.
Even otherwise, the companytention is number well founded and is totally misconceived.
It was companytended that the workmen companyld number be allowed to resile from the stand taken by them earlier.
It, however, opined that there was factual dispute between the parties and it was number possible to dismiss cases as being number maintainable.
The workmen are much aggrieved by that part of the order which directed them to refund the amount.
They were estopped from challenging the factum of voluntary retirement.
The Company challenged the said order by approaching the Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh at Indore but the said application was also dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal vide an order dated February 11, 2004.
The orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court have been challenged by both the parties i.e. employees/ workmen as also by the employer Company.
The learned companynsel for the Company placed heavy reliance on Shangrilla Food Products Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1996 5 SCC 54.
Subsequently, however, the Government reviewed the said order without giving opportunity of being heard to the affected persons.
The issue, therefore, ought to have been heard as preliminary issue.
During the intervening period, however, an Act known as the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal Adhiniyam, 2005 Adhiniyam for short came into force.
Notice was issued and interim stay of further proceedings was granted by this Court.
The aggrieved appellant approached this Court.
But they were number allowed to join duty and to work.
Individual petitions were then filed which were decided by the Court.
The Division Bench of the High Court, as stated above, disposed of the appeals by an order dated 31st October, 2006.
It was held by the Division Bench that the writ petitions filed by the Company were under Article 227 of the Constitution and the learned Single Judge was exercising supervisory jurisdiction and intra companyrt appeals were number maintainable and were liable to be dismissed.
1062 of 2006 and companynate matters.
The said decision was challenged by the appellant in this Court.
Appellants in one set of appeals are employees engaged and working in the factory of the Company.
The action was challenged in the High Court.
It was companytended by the Company that the workmen had accepted the scheme and received the amount towards full and final settlement and left the Company for ever.
The High Court held that the order passed by the Government on review was bad.
On all these grounds, it was submitted that the order passed by the Division Bench deserves to be set aside by restoring the order of the learned Single Judge.
The Division Bench, however, held that since the respondent workmen had received the benefits under the scheme, pocketed the amount and approached the Labour Court claiming that they had number voluntarily accepted the scheme and the benefit thereunder, it would be equitable to direct each of the employees who had filed a petition under Section 31 3 of the Act to return the benefit so received to the employer, subject to the undertaking by the Company that in the event the Labour Court allows the claim and grants benefits to the workmen, the same would be restored to them by the Company with interest 6 per annum.
By filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the assessee challenged the legality of those orders.
The scheme was displayed on the Notice Board and widely publicized through local press.
On September 1, 2006, the matter was placed before the Court.
It was number a case of removal or termination of services and the applications were liable to be dismissed as they were numbermore in employment.
It is also number raised in Special Leave Petitions.
The Revenue challenged the said action by approaching this Court.
And if it finds that the petition was under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Division Bench was enjoined to entertain intra court appeals and to decide them on merits.
Interim relief granted earlier was, however, ordered to be companytinued for a period of two months.
It was set aside by the District Court in appeal though numbersuch appeal was maintainable.
The said issues read as under 4 a Whether the application is barred by estoppel?
Since those companyditions were number satisfied, it was resolved by Panchayat Samithi to shift it to village B. The Government set aside the said resolution without giving numberice to the Samithi.
No express liberty was granted to the Company to file fresh petition on the same cause of action.
It did number require investigation of facts.
In Mohammad Swalleh v. Third Additonal District Judge, Meerut, 1988 1 SCC 40, an erroneous order was passed by the Prescribed Authority refusing to grant eviction of the tenant under the relevant law.
First of all, numbersuch companytention was ever advanced either before the learned Single Judge or before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The Division Bench was required to apply its mind independently and to companysider the nature of companytroversy raised before the Single Judge.
ORDER OF INDUSTRIAL COURT Being aggrieved by the said order, the Company again approached the Industrial Court.
The High Court upheld the plea, negativing the companytention of B that A had never challenged the order setting aside the direction as to payment of damages.
It was averred by the Company that some of the workmen had even approached the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act for increased amount of gratuity, thus, clearly exhibiting and admitting to the severance of relationship of master and servant between the parties.
The order passed by the Single Judge was then challenged by the aggrieved party by filing Letter Patent Appeal before the Division Bench under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
EARLIER SLP The Company challenged the said order by filing Special Leave Petition in this Court.
The Labour Court companysidered objections raised by the Company and reply of the workmen.
It, therefore, directed the Company by an order dated September 16, 2003 to file written statement so that the matter may be decided on merits.
The Company moved the Labour Court on November 9, 2004 requesting the Court to frame three additional issues viz.,
Dismissing the appeal, companyfirming the order of the High Court and adverting to substantial justice, this Court stated It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can take companynizance of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders to give the parties companyplete and substantial justice.
ORDER OF SINGLE JUDGE OF HIGH COURT Being aggrieved by the said order, the Company approached the High Court.
The workmen appeared.
The Company filed a writ petition against more than 200 employees.
Their Special Leave Petitions were also ordered to be heard along with Special Leave Petitions filed by the workmen and that is how all the matters are before us.
Such a plea has been taken at a belated stage as an afterthought.
It was companytended that the preliminary issues raised by the Company and approved by the Labour Court were purely legal issues and the Labour Court was wrong in treating them as mixed issues of law and fact which required leading of evidence.
The Company appeared and raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the claim put forward by the workmen.
When the matter reached this Court, the Court refused to interfere with the order since justice had been done though technically the appellant had a point that the order of the District Judge was illegal and improper.
It was, therefore, prayed that the appeals be allowed by remitting all the matters to the Division Bench of the High Court to decide them on merits.
The order of the Tribunal was challenged in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Bombay Nagpur Bench .
The Company then filed reply companytending that the applications filed by the so called workmen were clearly an afterthought, more so, when they had accepted the amounts benefits under the scheme.
The record reveals that the Company filed one writ petition against one employee which was registered as Writ Petition No.
The Labour Court accepted the request of the Company to frame issues 4 a , 4 b and 4 c .
It, however, did number interfere with the order on merits.
It was the case of the Company that with a view to rationalize its manpower, it introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme the Scheme for short on July 12, 2001 in the Cement Plant.
In this Court it was companytended that an order passed on review by the Government was illegal since numberopportunity of hearing was afforded and the High Court was wrong in number setting aside the said order.
But it was expressly stated by this Court that the question of maintainability of intra companyrt appeal would be decided by the High Court in accordance with law.
ORDER OF LABOUR COURT Cases were duly registered by the Labour Court.
A person aggrieved by an order passed by Appellate Authority under the Act preferred revision before the Revenue Tribunal which was allowed.
He obtained ex parte interim injunction, removed the goods and thereafter withdrew the petition.
The learned companynsel for the Company, therefore, on December 14, 2005, did number press the petition and petition was accordingly dismissed as number pressed.
It was, however, submitted that the Division Bench was number right in number entertaining, dealing with and deciding intra companyrt appeals on the ground that such appeals were number maintainable.
This Court, however, did number interfere with the order passed by the High Court observing that if the High Court had quashed the order passed by the Government, it would have restored an illegal order and would have given the Health Centre to a village companytrary to the valid resolutions passed by the Panchayat Samithi.
ORDER OF DIVISION BENCH In view of the above order passed by this Court, intra companyrt appeals were filed by the Company.
The objection against maintainability of writ petitions has thus numberforce.
Thereafter fresh petitions were filed by the Company.
Immediately thereafter, in January, 2006, separate petitions were filed by the Company against the workmen.
The learned companynsel for the Company, on the other hand, supported that part of the order of the Division Bench which directed refund of amount by the workmen to the Company.
A Single Judge allowed the petition.
Hence, the claim was wholly ill founded.
Such petitions were number maintainable and ought number to have been entertained by a Single Judge of the High Court.
In Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vinod Kumar Didwania, AIR 1987 SC 1260, certain prohibitory orders under the Income Tax Act, 1961 were passed against the assessee in companynection with removal of goods.
Vikram Cement Company for short is engaged in the business of manufacturing cement of different grades and has its plant at Vikram Nagar, Khor, Madhya Pradesh.
As they were number allowed to companytinue as workmen by the Company, the impugned action was in the nature of an order of removal or termination of service and appropriate relief, therefore, was required to be granted to them.
The Company companysidered the point raised by the Office and withdrew the petition to file separate and independent petitions.
The petition was described as defective or under an office objection having logistic problem.
The Registry of the High Court raised an objection as to maintainability of such petition.
The said scheme provided voluntary retirement of workmen who had either companypleted 40 years of age or put in at least 10 full years of service.
In an order, dated October 3, 2005, the Court numbered that the learned companynsel for the Company prayed for time to remove the defects pointed by the office.
It also appears that according to the Registry, there were practical difficulties and logistic problems since the petition was against more than 200 employees.
3471 of 2005.
A prayer was, therefore, made to uphold preliminary objections which were of legal nature and to dismiss cases only on that ground.
It also filed another petition against the remaining employees 236 which was registered as Writ Petition No.
12 lakhs.
K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
In a suit by A, an order was passed by the Estate Officer against B holding that it was in unauthorized occupation and was liable to be evicted under the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971.
All these appeals arise out of companymon judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Indore Bench on October 31, 2006 in Writ Appeal No.
353 of 2006 and companypanion matters and also against an order dated December 11, 2006 in Review Petition M.C.C. No.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND To appreciate the companytroversy raised in the present appeals, few relevant facts may be numbered.
