Supreme Court of India
CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, ENNORE PORT TRUST (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS KAMARAJAR PORT LIMITED)versusV. MANOHARAN AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2018 INSC 149
- Decided
- 15 February 2018
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- R K AGRAWAL
Holding
The court held that the questions of employment and regularisation raised by the workers are matters of fact to be decided by the arbitral tribunal under Clause 31 of the MOU, and consequently the writ petitions could not be entertained by the court.
Summary
The case concerned workers who had been handling coal and iron‑ore at Chennai Port Trust and later claimed regularisation of their services after the activity was shifted to Ennore Port Trust. The workers formed an association, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the port trust that included an arbitration clause (Clause 31). Subsequent writ petitions seeking regularisation were filed, but the Single Judge dismissed them and the Division Bench partially allowed them. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the disputes were factual questions of employment and regularisation that must be decided by the arbitral tribunal under the MOU, not by a writ jurisdiction. It emphasized that each claimant must prove his own employment status and that the court cannot entertain the writ petitions on merits. The appeals were allowed, the earlier orders set aside, the writ petitions dismissed, and the parties were directed to refer the matter to an arbitral tribunal.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petitioners are employees of Chennai Port Trust or of any contractor.
- Whether an employer‑employee relationship exists between the petitioners and the port trust.
- Whether the petitioners are members of the Madras Port Spillage Handling Workers Association and the legal effect of such membership.
- Whether petitioners who are not members of the Association can claim any relief and against which port trust.
- Whether petitioners who are members of the Association are entitled to relief and of what nature.
- Whether petitioners who prove employment are entitled to regularisation, its date and benefits.
- Whether the writ petitions are maintainable given the arbitration clause in the MOU.
- Whether the disputes fall within the jurisdiction of a writ petition under Art. 226 or must be referred to an arbitral tribunal.
Legislation cited
Subjects
employment regularisationarbitration clausewrit jurisdictionPort TrustMOUenvironmental pollutionpublic interest litigationfact‑findingArbitral TribunalContract Labour Act
Judgment
644 [2018]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 2 S.C.R. 644 [2018] 2 S.C.R.
A CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR,
ENNORE PORT TRUST
(PRESENTLY KNOWN AS KAMARAJAR PORT LIMITED)
v.
V. MANOHARAN AND ORS.
B
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2114-2115 of 2018)
FEBRUARY 15, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art.226 – Writ petition under,
C involving questions of facts – Maintainability of – In Chennai Port
Trust, in order to carry out loading, unloading etc. of coal and iron
ore, numbers of workers were involved – Writ petition filed by these
workers for regularization of their services – During pendency of
the writ petition, these workers formed an association – Matter
D referred to arbitration– Arbitral tribunal inter alia, directed the parties
to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for settlement
of disputes – Accordingly, Chennai Port Trust and the Association
entered into an MOU– Writ petition filed by some public spirited
persons inter alia for shifting of activity of Chennai Port Trust to
some other Port so that environmental pollution prevailing in the
E locality is considerably reduced, allowed – Accordingly, activities
from Chennai Port Trust shifted to Ennore Port – In the meantime,
90 persons again claiming to be workers working on Chennai Port
Trust filed writ petition seeking regularization of their services, which
was dismissed by Single Judge – Division Bench partly allowed the
F appeal and gave certain directions to Chennai Port Trust and Ennore
Port Trust (appellants) – On appeal, held: Having regard to the
nature of controversy raised by respondents and keeping in view
Clause 31 of MOU, which provided for referring the case to Arbitral
Tribunal in the event of any dispute, the writ petition filed by
respondents should not have been tried on merits by Single Judge
G and instead the parties should have been left to take recourse to
the remedy provided in Clause 31 – Even otherwise, the disputes
raised in the present case are not the disputes which are capable of
being tried in writ jurisdiction and can be tried only by a Tribunal
– Parties are relegated to take recourse to the arbitration proceeding
H for adjudicating the disputes – Societies Registration Act, 1860.
644
CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, ENNORE PORT TRUST v. 645
V. MANOHARAN AND ORS.
Allowing the appeals, the Court A
HELD: 1.1 Having regard to the nature of the controversy
raised by the writ petitioners (respondents herein) and relief
sought in the writ petitions and keeping in view the clauses of
the MOU, especially Clause 31, which provides for referring the
case to the Arbitral Tribunal in the event of any dispute arising B
between the parties in relation to MOU, the writ petition filed by
the respondents herein under Article 226 of the Constitution
should not have been entertained for being tried on merits by
the Single Judge and instead the parties should have been left to
take recourse to the remedy provided in Clause 31 for referring
the case to Arbitral Tribunal for its decision in accordance with C
law. [Para 22][652-D-F]
1.2 A question whether a particular person is in the
employment of any establishment and whether he is entitled to
claim regularization of his services in such establishment (as in
this case Port Trust) and, if so, from which date is essentially a D
question of fact. If such question is disputed by the establishment,
then it is required to be decided by a fact-finding body on the
basis of evidence adduced by such person unless the parties do
not dispute the facts. If one person is able to prove his case of
regularization qua establishment from a particular date that does E
not necessarily mean that other person’s case is also automatically
proved alike other person. In other words, every person has to
prove his case qua establishment independently by adducing
evidence. It is only then such person is entitled to claim such
relief. [Paras 23-26][652-F-H; 653-A]
F
1.3 Several questions arise in the case at hand and need to
be answered before considering grant of appropriate relief, if any.
These questions when seen in the background facts of the case
are inter-linked with each other and relate to the main activity
which was being carried in the Chennai Port Trust and now shifted
to Ennore Port Trust largely. The disputes now being raised again G
relate to the employment and regularization of the class IV
employees in the set up of Chennai Port Trust. [Para 27][653-B-
C]
1.4 The following questions do arise in this case. First,
whether the writ petitioners (respondents herein) were/are in H
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 2 S.C.R.
A employment of Chennai Port Trust or in the employment of any
contractor and, if so, its basis. Second, whether there ever existed
any relationship of employee and employer between them and
Chennai Port Trust or between them and any contractor and, if
so, its basis. Third, whether the writ petitioners were/are members
of the Association and, if yes, then its effect and if not, then its
B
effect. Fourth, assuming that the writ petitioners are not held to
be the members of the Association as they claimed in the writ
petition, whether they (90 in number) are still entitled to claim
any relief and, if so, against which Port Trust and of which nature.
Fifth, assuming that the writ petitioners are held members of the
C Association or say eligible members by virtue of their
qualifications prescribed in the MOU, whether they are entitled
to claim any relief against any Port Trust and, if so, of which nature.
Sixth, if the writ petitioners (whether all or some) are able to
prove that they are/were in the employment of Chennai Port Trust
and that relationship of employee and employer between them
D
does exist notwithstanding execution of MOU, then whether such
persons are entitled to claim regularization in the service of Port
Trust and, if so, since when and with what benefits or their cases
are still governed by MOU as its members and lastly, what
eventual reliefs, if any, can be granted to the writ petitioners.
E [Paras 28-33][653-D-H; 654-A-B]
1.5 The aforesaid questions could not be decided in the
writ petition but could be adjudicated more effectively by a fact-
finding body empowered to record evidence. Since in this case
parties have agreed to refer the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal
F in the event of any dispute arising between them, it would be in
the interest of justice that the parties are relegated to take
recourse to the arbitration proceeding remedy for adjudicating
the disputes. To decide the questions arising in the case at hand,
recourse to MOU for the purpose of referring the case to
arbitration can be taken. Even otherwise, the disputes raised
G herein are not the disputes, which are capable of being tried
effectively in writ jurisdiction and indeed are capable of being
tried only by a Tribunal. [Paras 34-36][654-B-D]
1.6 The writ petitioners and the Port Trusts are granted
liberty to approach the Court for appointment of Arbitral Tribunal
H
CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, ENNORE PORT TRUST v. 647
V. MANOHARAN AND ORS.
in terms of Clause 31 of MOU for deciding the questions framed A
by this Court. Parties are also at liberty to appoint the Arbitral
Tribunal with mutual consent, if they so wish, without taking
recourse to appointment of Arbitral Tribunal through Court. The
Arbitral Tribunal once appointed will embark upon the reference
on the questions framed by this Court and would be free to frame
B
any more questions after consultation of the parties/stakeholders,
if such questions also arise and need to be decided to give quietus
to the long pending disputes. [Paras 39-41][654-G-H; 655-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2114-
2115 of 2018.
C
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in WA Nos.1020 and 1378 of 2016
respectively
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 2116-2118 of 2018.
D
P. S. Narsimha, P. Wilson, V. Prakash, Raju Ramachandran,
Sr. Advs, Senthil Jagadeesan, Ms. Shruti Iyer, Ms. Sonakshi Malhan,
Ms. Suriti Chowdhary, R. Nedumaran, P. V. Yogeswaran, A. K. Upadhyay,
Bhuwan Jayant, Ms. Hansini, S. R. Setia, Anurag Dubey, Ms. Anu
Sawhney, Ajit Kr. Pathak, Sanchit Maheshwari, Mukesh Jain, Advs. for
the appearing parties. E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise from the final judgment and order dated
05.01.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A.
F
No.1020 of 2016, W.A. No. 1351/2016 and W.A. No.1378 of 2016
whereby the Division Bench of the High Court while reversing/set aside
the judgment of the Single Judge partly allowed the writ appeals and
gave certain directions to the Port Trusts (appellants herein) for their
compliance in favour of the writ petitioners (respondents herein).
3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in these appeals, it is G
necessary to set out the relevant facts hereinbelow.
4. There are two Port Trusts in Chennai. One is known as
“Chennai Port Trust” and the other is known as “Ennore Port Trust”,
now called “Kamarajar Port Trust”.
H
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 2 S.C.R.
A 5. Chennai Port is one of the oldest ports in the country. Amongst
several operational activities of loading, unloading, spillages and clearing
of various kinds of the goods, which are undertaken regularly in the
Port, one such activity that is operational on regular basis is handling of
“Coal and Iron Ore”.
B 6. In order to carry out the loading, unloading, spillages and clearing
the coal and iron ore from the Iron Ore Handling Plant set up in the Port
Trust, the stakeholders need workers (class IV). Sizeable numbers of
worker are, therefore, involved in doing this work on regular basis.
7. In 1987, these workers made a demand to regularize their
C services in the set up of the Port Trust. Since their demands were not
acceded to, they (160 or so) filed a writ petition (W.P. No.9011 of 1987)
in the High Court at Madras seeking therein a relief of regularization of
their services in the set up of Chennai Port Trust.
8. The Chennai Port Trust contested the writ petition and
D contended that it is not possible to regularize the services of these workers
(writ petitioners) for various reasons in their set up. It was contended
that these workers are not the employees of the Port Trust and nor there
exists any relationship of employer and employee between them. It was
also contended that it is the contractor, who engages these workers, and
hence they are the employees of the Contractor but not Port Trust.
E
9. During pendency of the writ petition, these workers (writ
petitioners) formed one association called – “Madras Port Spillage
Handling Workers Association” (hereinafter referred to as “the
Association”) and got the Association registered as Society under the
Society Registration Act.
F
10. The matter was then referred to arbitration which resulted in
passing of an award dated 22.10.1994. The award was published in the
Government of India Gazette on 24.12.1994. The award, inter alia,
directed the parties to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) for settlement of the disputes. Accordingly, the Association and
G the Chennai Port Trust entered into a MOU on 02.05.1995. (Annexure-
P-1)
11. Clause 1 of MOU provides that subject to Association following
the terms and conditions of MOU, the Port Trust has agreed to give
work of loading /unloading/spillage/cleaning to the members of the
H
CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, ENNORE PORT TRUST v. 649
V. MANOHARAN AND ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
Association. Clause 2 of the MOU provides that membership of A
Association will not exceed the number of 160 and the membership of
Association will be given only to those persons, who are declared
physically fit with the approval of the Chairman. Clause 2 further provides
that preference would be given to dependants of those who had been
employed and died or became physically unfit, their dependents would
B
be made member of the Association subject to dependant concerned
declared fit by the Medical Board and whose membership is approved
by the Chairman. Clause 3 deals with allocation of work to male/female
members. Clause 4 further provides that member will be discontinued
from the work on attaining the age of 58 and in the absence of any proof
of age, the certification issued by the Medical Board of his/her age would C
be final. Clause 5 provides that, if any member is found unfit, he would
be discontinued from work once certified by the Medical Board. Clause
6 provides that all workers currently working would be deployed for
clearing spillage of Iron Ore. Clauses 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 20, 21, 22, 28, 29
and 30 provide the manner and mode of payment including paying other
D
monetary benefits to the members of the Association whereas Clauses
9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 provide for extending
various kinds of facilities and welfare benefits to the members of the
Association and lastly, Clause 31 provides for resolution of disputes arising
between the parties in relation to MOU through the means of arbitration.
12. This MOU was amended on 31.12.1998 (Annexure P-2). One E
of the amendments was that the Association was recognized as
“Contractor” whereas the Chennai Port Trust was declared as “Principal
Employer” under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,
1970.
13. In the light of the aforementioned background facts arising in F
the case, one writ petition (Public Interest Litigation) came to be filed in
the Madras High Court (W.P. No.11747/2002) by some public-spirited
persons against the State, Chennai port Trust and Pollution Board
complaining therein that due to heavy and reckless handling of coal and
iron ore and heavy movement of dusty cargo every day in Chennai Port G
Trust (handling plant) premises, the activity is emitting, huge quantity of
dust and several chemical particles in the air are polluting the entire
environment which, according to the writ petitioners, was harmful to the
life of human being and especially to those, who are residing in the nearby
area of the Port. It was complained that such activity being hazardous
H
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 2 S.C.R.
A and equally injurious to the health of human beings, should be stopped
forthwith or, in any case, be regulated in the larger public interest including
considering shifting of activity to some other Port, if considered feasible
and practicable so that hazards of the environmental pollution which is
prevailing in the locality is considerably reduced. It is essentially to
espouse this cause, the PIL (writ petition) was filed for claiming
B
appropriate remedial relief(s) for the benefit of the larger public good.
The State and the Chennai Port Trust contested the writ petition on
several grounds.
14. By order dated 11.05.2011, the High Court allowed the writ
petition and gave five directions to the Chennai Port Trust and Ennore
C Port Trust for ensuring their compliance. These directions are reproduced
hereinbelow:
“(a) All the writ petitions are allowed. However, the prayer
in W.P. No.41163 of 2002, with regard to the compensation
aspect stands dismissed.
D
(b) The Government of India, represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi is directed to see
distribution of cargoes between Ennore Port and Chennai
Port, allotting clean cargoes viz. container, car etc. to
Chennai Port and the dusty cargoes like coal, iron ore and
E all other dusty cargoes to Ennore Port.
(c) Since the coal terminal, iron ore terminal and the single
line rail connectivity at Ennore Port are assured to be
operational to their full capacity by September, 2011, the
Government of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry
F of Shipping, New Delhi and the Government of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Chief Secretary are directed to see that
all the dusty cargoes like coal, iron ore and all other dusty
cargoes should move only to Ennore Port on and from
1.10.2011 and not to Chennai Port. The Chennai Port is
G also directed to render all its cooperation to the Government
of India and the Government of Tamil Nadu in this direction.
(d) With regard to the employees and pensioners of the
Chennai Port, the Government of India, the Government
of Tamil Nadu, Chennai Port Trust and the Ennore Port
Trust are directed to see that not even a single employee
H
CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, ENNORE PORT TRUST v. 651
V. MANOHARAN AND ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
is retrenched or otherwise made to lose his livelihood A
because of the distribution of cargoes between Ennore Port
and Chennai Port, as ordered above. For this purpose,
since the dusty cargoes are going to be berthed and
processed at Ennore Port on and from 1.10.2011, the
Ennore Port may treat the employees of the Chennai Port
B
connected to such activities as its employees, including the
pensioners. In case of any difficulty, the Government of
India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping,
New Delhi and the Chief Secretary to the Government of
Tamil Nadu, shall divide the employees and pensioners,
between the Chennai Port and the Ennore Port, C
proportionate to the income of both the Ports.
(e) With regard to the traders, like the impleaded
respondents 6 to 8 also, both the Chennai Port and the
Ennore Port are directed to protect their rights and interest,
in accordance with law.” D
15. Since the offending activity was largely shifted from Chennai
Port Trust to Ennore Port Trust in terms of directions of the High Court,
the Chennai Port Trust on 15.10.2012 resolved to terminate the MOU.
On 06.12.2012, the Association was accordingly informed about the
termination. E
16. In the meantime, 90 persons again woke up and claiming to be
the workers working on the Chennai Port Trust filed a writ petition (W.P.
33614 of 2012) and sought regularization of their services in the set up
of the Chennai Port Trust. Their main case was that since all the writ
petitioners (90) were working for the last more than 2 decades with the F
Chennai Port Trust as Class IV employees, their services should be
regularized in the set up of Chennai Port Trust. In support of this relief,
the writ petitioners produced certain evidence.
17. The Chennai Port Trust contested the writ petition, inter alia,
again contending that there was no relationship of employee and employer G
between the writ petitioners and the Chennai Port Trust and, therefore,
the writ petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief much less the
relief of regularization in the services of Chennai Port Trust.
18. The Single Judge, by order 22.07.2016, dismissed the writ
petition holding that there did not exist any relationship of employer and
H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 2 S.C.R.
A employee between the parties and hence no relief can be granted to the
writ petitioners much less the one claimed in the writ petition. The writ
petitioners felt aggrieved and filed writ appeal before the Division Bench
of the High Court.
19. By impugned order, the Division Bench partly allowed the
B writ appeal and gave certain directions to the Port Trusts(appellants
herein) for their compliance in favour of the writ petitioners (respondents
herein) which has given rise to filing of these appeals by way of special
leave by the Port Trusts before this Court.
20. Heard Mr. P.S. Narsimha, Mr. P. Wilson, learned senior counsel
for the appellants and Mr. V. Prakash, Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned
C
senior counsel for the respondents.
21. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeals in part
with directions mentioned hereinbelow.
22. In our considered opinion, having regard to the nature of the
D
controversy raised by the writ petitioners (respondents herein) and relief
sought in the writ petitions out of which these appeals arise and keeping
in view the clauses of the MOU, especially Clause 31, which provides
for referring the case to the Arbitral Tribunal in the event of any dispute
arising between the parties in relation to MOU, the writ petition filed by
E the respondents herein under Article 226 of the Constitution should not
have been entertained for being tried on merits by the Single Judge and
instead the parties should have been left to take recourse to the remedy
provided in Clause 31 for referring the case to Arbitral Tribunal for its
decision in accordance with law.
F 23. In our considered opinion, a question whether a particular
person is in the employment of any establishment and whether he is
entitled to claim regularization of his services in such establishment (as
in this case Port Trust) and, if so, from which date is essentially a question
of fact.
24. If such question is disputed by the establishment, then it is
G
required to be decided by a fact-finding body on the basis of evidence
adduced by such person unless the parties do not dispute the facts.
25. If one person is able to prove his case of regularization qua
establishment from a particular date that does not necessarily mean that
other person’s case is also automatically proved alike other person.
H
CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, ENNORE PORT TRUST v. 653
V. MANOHARAN AND ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
26. In other words, every person has to prove his case qua A
establishment independently by adducing evidence. It is only then such
person is entitled to claim such relief.
27. In our considered opinion, several questions arise in the case
at hand and need to be answered before considering grant of appropriate
relief, if any. These questions when we see the background facts of the B
case set out above are inter-linked with each other and relate to the
main activity which was being carried in the Chennai Port Trust and
now shifted to Ennore Port Trust largely. The disputes now being raised
again relate to the employment and regularization of the class IV
employees in the set up of Chennai Port Trust. Indeed, to settle this
controversy for all time to come, the stakeholders had in past executed C
MOU providing therein the entire machinery to safeguard the rights and
obligation of parties concerned, which are detailed above. But due to
several intervening factors, it did not seem to have worked smoothly.
28. In our considered opinion, the following questions do arise in
this case. D
29. First, whether the writ petitioners (respondents herein) were/
are in employment of Chennai Port Trust or in the employment of any
contractor and, if so, its basis. Second, whether there ever existed any
relationship of employee and employer between the writ petitioners and
Chennai Port Trust or between the writ petitioners and any contractor E
and, if so, its basis.
30. Third, whether the writ petitioners were/are members of the
Association and, if yes, then its effect and if not, then its effect.
31. Fourth, assuming that the writ petitioners are not held to be F
the members of the Association as they now claim in the writ petition
(see ground (e) in the writ petition at page 125-126), whether the writ
petitioners (90 in number) are still entitled to claim any relief and, if so,
against which Port Trust and of which nature.
32. Fifth, assuming that the writ petitioners are held members of
G
the Association or let us say eligible members by virtue of their
qualifications prescribed in the MOU, whether they are entitled to claim
any relief against any Port Trust and, if so, of which nature.
33. Sixth, If the writ petitioners (whether all or some) are able to
prove that they are/were in the employment of Chennai Port Trust and
H
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 2 S.C.R.
A that relationship of employee and employer between them does exist
notwithstanding execution of MOU, then whether such persons are entitled
to claim regularization in the service of Port Trust and, if so, since when
and with what benefits or their cases are still governed by MOU as its
members and lastly, what eventual reliefs, if any, can be granted to the
writ petitioners.
B
34. In our view, the aforesaid questions could not be decided in
the writ petition but could be adjudicated more effectively by a fact-
finding body empowered to record evidence.
35. Since in this case parties have agreed to refer the matter to
C the Arbitral Tribunal in the event of any dispute arising between them,
we are of the view that it would be in the interest of justice that the
parties are relegated to take recourse to the arbitration proceeding remedy
for adjudicating the disputes.
36. We are of the view that to decide the questions arising in the
D case at hand, recourse to MOU for the purpose of referring the case to
arbitration can be taken. As observed supra, even otherwise, the disputes
raised herein are not the disputes, which are capable of being tried
effectively in writ jurisdiction and indeed are capable of being tried only
by a Tribunal.
E 37. Once the disputes are referred to the Arbitral Tribunal, the
writ petitioners and the Port Trusts would be at liberty to raise all the
issues on facts/law in support of their respective contentions including
adducing evidence (oral and documentary).
38. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are unable to sustain
F the impugned order, which in the facts of this case should not have been
passed.
39. As a consequence, we allow the appeals, set aside the impugned
judgments of the Division Bench and the Single Judge, dismiss the writ
petition out of which these appeals arise and grant liberty to the writ
petitioners and the Port Trusts to approach the Court for appointment of
G
Arbitral Tribunal in terms of Clause 31 of MOU for deciding the questions
framed by this Court supra.
40. Parties are also at liberty to appoint the Arbitral Tribunal with
mutual consent, if they so wish, without taking recourse to appointment
of Arbitral Tribunal through Court.
H
CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, ENNORE PORT TRUST v. 655
V. MANOHARAN AND ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
41. The Arbitral Tribunal once appointed will embark upon the A
reference on the questions framed by this Court and would be free to
frame any more questions after consultation of the parties/stakeholders,
if such questions also arise and need to be decided to give quietus to the
long pending disputes.
42. The Arbitral Tribunal will afford full opportunity to all the parties B
(stakeholders) concerned to file their response/statements and lead
evidence in support of their respective stands and then pass a reasoned
award in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence adduced by
the parties (oral/documentary) uninfluenced by any observations made
by Single Judge and the Division Bench.
C
43. Since the case is old and concerning about a large number of
workers, efforts be made to complete the proceedings within six months
from the date of appointment of Arbitral Tribunal.
Divya Pandey Appeals allowed. D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "employment regularisation"Sign in to search