Summary
The Supreme Court declined to reopen the High Court’s non-perverse factual finding that the workman lacked one year’s continuous service and upheld the setting aside of reinstatement. Payments already made under Section 17B during the litigation remained irrecoverable despite the employer’s ultimate success.
Issues
- Whether the finding on continuous service required fresh evidentiary examination in appeal.
- Whether Section 17B payments became recoverable after reinstatement relief failed.
Provisions considered
- Section 6-N, Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The qualifying continuous-service issue was resolved against the workman on the facts; the Court declined de novo reassessment. (¶ 11–18)
- Section 17B, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947Payments ordered during the employer’s challenge were protected from recovery even though the termination ultimately stood. (¶ 19–22)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaThe Court declined fresh evidence appreciation where the High Court’s factual conclusion was neither unsupported by evidence, contrary to law nor perverse. (¶¶ 13, 16–17)
Held
- The High Court examined the continuous-service issue in the factual setting and its finding against the workman showed no evidentiary, legal or perversity defect justifying fresh appraisal under Article 136. The cited Sriram decision was distinguishable on facts. (¶¶ 13, 16–18)
- Section 17B proceedings are independent of the final outcome of the main dispute. The employer’s success did not permit recovery of sums already paid under that provision during litigation; the High Court correctly preserved them. (¶ 19–22)
Result
Workman’s appeals dismissed; setting aside of the reinstatement award upheld, with protection against recovery of Section 17B payments maintained.