Summary
The Supreme Court set aside both High Court judgments in a port-workers’ regularisation dispute and relegated the parties to arbitration under their memorandum of understanding. Employment status, association membership, the effect of the MOU and entitlement against the respective ports required individual evidence and fact-finding. The Court granted liberty to obtain or mutually appoint a tribunal, leaving the merits open and seeking completion within six months of its appointment.
Issues
- Whether disputed port-worker employment and regularisation claims should have been tried in writ jurisdiction or through the MOU’s arbitration machinery.
Held
- Employment by an establishment and entitlement to regularisation from a particular date are factual questions where disputed. Each claimant must independently establish the necessary relationship and entitlement by evidence; success of one does not automatically establish another’s case. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26)
- The interlinked questions included whether the workers were port or contractor employees, whether they were association members or eligible members, how the MOU affected their position, and what relief could lie against either port after the activity shifted. These required an evidentiary fact-finding forum rather than determination in these writ proceedings. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34)
- The parties could invoke Clause 31 of the MOU, approach the court for appointment of an arbitral tribunal or appoint one by consent. All factual and legal contentions and oral and documentary evidence remained open; the Supreme Court did not itself order regularisation or finally reject the workers’ substantive claims. (¶¶ 22, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40)
- The tribunal was to decide the framed questions and could formulate further necessary questions after consulting stakeholders. It had to afford full opportunity and make a reasoned award uninfluenced by either High Court judgment, endeavouring to finish within six months from appointment. (¶¶ 41, 42, 43)
Result
Appeals allowed; Division Bench and Single Judge judgments set aside and writ petition dismissed, with liberty to seek or mutually appoint the arbitral tribunal under Clause 31. Merits left for evidentiary adjudication; completion within six months of appointment requested.