9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against decision of Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding reinstatement of employee Nanilal Mukherjee. Analysis: The case involved an appeal with special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution arising from a decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal Calcutta, which reversed the award of the Industrial Tribunal and ordered the reinstatement of Nanilal Mukherjee in the appellant's employ with full pay and continuity of service. Nanilal Mukherjee had been employed as a Turbine Fitter and was retained by the appellant after electrification of mills but later discharged due to redundancy. The Industrial Tribunal held he was not entitled to reinstatement, but the Labour Appellate Tribunal ordered his reinstatement based on insufficient evidence, disregarding the Industrial Tribunal's findings. The Industrial Tribunal's decision was based on evidence from Nanilal Mukherjee and James Collins, concluding that his discharge was due to redundancy after the Turbine closed down. The Industrial Tribunal's decision was within its jurisdiction, as there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion reached. The Labour Appellate Tribunal erred in entertaining the appeal without any substantial question of law involved. The jurisdiction of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was limited to cases involving substantial questions of law, not factual findings. The evidence presented was deemed adequate for the Industrial Tribunal's decision, and no legal issue was raised in the appeal to warrant the Labour Appellate Tribunal's intervention. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the Labour Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the Industrial Tribunal's award regarding Nanilal Mukherjee. The decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was set aside, and the Industrial Tribunal's award on the issue was restored. The respondent did not appear at the hearing, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The judgment emphasized the importance of jurisdictional limits and the need for substantial legal questions to be raised in appeals before tribunals.
|
