HIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR. versus HIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ UNION & ANR.
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 424, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 424 : 2023 INSC 799
424
CASE DETAILS
HIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR.
v.
HIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ UNION & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 8801 of 2012)
AUGUST 17, 2023
[HIMA KOHLI AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: The stand taken by the appellants-
Management was that in its establishment, there were more than 100 
workmen, hence, reference of a dispute to the Labour Court was without 
jurisdiction and consequently, any award passed by the Labour Court was not 
sustainable, whether the stand taken by the appellants-Management justiﬁ ed.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Earlier, High Court had granted 
liberty for correction of factual error to substantiate that there were 
more than 100 workmen and the appellant could place on record the 
documents – Pursuant thereto, the Labour Court admitted application 
of appellant for submitting documents by order dated 30.06.2010 – The 
objection raised by the respondents-workmen was dismissed by order 
12.08.2010 and application to summon oﬃ  cial witnesses by appellants 
was allowed – Writ petition by respondents-workmen – High Court 
set aside the said three orders (30.06.2010, 12.08.2010 and 06.10.2010) 
passed by the Labour Court – Propriety:
Held: As the number of workmen employed in the establishment has 
a direct relation with the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or the Industrial 
Tribunal to deal with the matter, it would be appropriate to refer to the 
material which was placed on record by the
appellants-Management before 
the Labour Court, after the earlier writ petition ﬁ led by the appellants-
Management was disposed of with liberty to the Management to move for 
correction of factual error – A perusal of the documents prima facie shows 
that more than 100 workmen were employed by the appellants-Management 
from 1999-2000 to 2009-2010 – An application was ﬁ led by the respondents-
425
workmen on 09.10.2001 with the appellants-Management raising certain 
demands – It was on the basis thereof that, reference was made to the Labour 
Court by the Labour Commissioner – The record showing that the appellants-
Management was employing more than 100 workmen, was available and 
was also a part of the earlier proceedings before the Labour Commissioner 
– On facts, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Labour Court, as the 
material permitted to be placed on record will go to the root of the case in 
determining the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate the matter – 
Thus, matter is remitted back to the Labour Court and appellant-management 
is permitted to lead evidence to substantiate that they were employing more 
than 100 workmen during relevant period – The impugned order passed by 
the High Court and the three orders passed by the Labour Court set aside. 
[Paras 16, 17, 20, 22, 23]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Whether a matter can be remitted 
back to the Labour Court for a decision afresh:
Held: Liberty was given by the Supreme Court in Santhosh Bansi 
Mahajan’s case to ﬁ le the said document before the Labour Court and the 
matter was remitted back to the Labour Court to be decided afresh. [Para 21]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Santhosh Bansi Mahajan v. State Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh 
and others, (1984) Supp. SCC 193; Bundi Zila Petrol Pump Dealers 
Association, Bundi v. Sanyojak Bundi Zila Petrol Mazdoor Sangh (BMS),
(2019) 5 SCC 337 : [2019] 2 SCR 717 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.8801 of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.05.2011 of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore in WP No.824 of 2011.
Appearances:
S. Hariharan, Vikash Singh, Advs. for the Appellants.
Sunil Kumar Jain, Ms. Rashika Swarup, Sunny Choudhary, Sandeep 
Sharma, Karan Bishnoi, Advs. for the Respondents.
HIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR. v. HIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ 
UNION & ANR.
426 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. Aggrieved against the order1 passed by the High Court2 in the Writ 
Petition3 ﬁ led under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Management 
is before this Court in appeal. Vide the aforesaid order1, three orders4, passed 
by the Labour Court5, were set aside with a direction to the Labour Court 
to allow the appellants-Management to exercise liberty only in relation to 
correction of factual errors in the order.
FACTS
2. The facts of the case, as evident from the record, are that the 
appellants-Management moved an application under Section 25-N of the 
ID Act6 seeking permission to retrench 45 workmen w.e.f. 01.12.2000. 
However, vide order dated 16.10.2000, the permission was declined by 
the Labour Commissioner and the application ﬁ led by the appellants-
Management was rejected. Thereafter, the workmen raised certain demands 
on 09.10.2001, seeking increase of wages and other facilities. The Labour 
Commissioner referred the dispute to the Labour Court vide order dated 
07.08.2002. Statement of claim was ﬁ led by the respondents-workmen before 
the Labour Court to which reply was ﬁ led by the appellant-Management. 
Finally, the matter was adjudicated. The claim made by the respondents-
workmen was accepted by the Labour Court vide Award dated 10.02.2006.
2.1 Challenging the aforesaid Award, the appellants-Management 
ﬁ led a Writ Petition7 before the
High Court2. As an interim measure, the 
High Court, while issuing notice, stayed the operation of the Impugned 
Award dated 10.02.2006 of the Labour Court. Plea raised by the appellants-
1 
Dated 11.05.2011.
2 
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore.
3 
WP (C) No. 824 of 2011.
4 
Dated 30.06.2010, 12.08.2010 and 06.10.2010 passed by the Labour Court.
5 
Labour Court, Dewas, Madhya Pradesh.
6 
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’)
7 
W.P. No.2375 (S) of 2006 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore.
427
Management before the High Court was that there being more than 100 
workmen in the factory of the appellants, reference under Section 10 of the 
ID Act6 should have been made by the Labour Commissioner only to the 
Industrial Tribunal. Vide order dated 06.01.2010, the High Court accepted 
the Writ Petition ﬁ led by the appellants-Management. The prayer made was 
that there being a jurisdictional error with reference to the court to which 
the reference could be made, as the appellants-Management had more than 
100 workmen, liberty be granted to the appellants to approach the Labour 
Court by ﬁ ling an appropriate application for correction of the factual error. 
Respondent No.1 being aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court 
ﬁ led a Review Petition8 before the High Court. However, the same was 
dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 12.03.2010. 
2.2 The appellants-Management ﬁ led an application before the Labour 
Court for correction of the factual error annexing documents, showing that 
even in the returns ﬁ led with the Employees State Insurance Corporation 
and Life Insurance Corporation etc., more than 100 workmen were shown 
to be employed with the appellants-Management. Reply was ﬁ led by the 
respondents-workmen to the application, objecting to the documents placed 
on record by the appellants-Management along with the application for 
correction of the error. The Labour Court vide order dated 30.06.2010 dealing 
with the objections raised by the
respondents-workmen, issued notice in the 
application and allowed the appellants-Management to ﬁ le the documents 
in support of its claim.
2.3 Again, objection was raised by the respondents-workmen regarding 
maintainability of the application before the Labour Court. However, the 
same was also rejected vide order dated 12.08.2010. Subsequently, an 
application was ﬁ led by the appellants-Management for summoning of 
oﬃ  cial records and the witnesses. The same was allowed by the Labour 
Court vide order dated 06.10.2010. At that stage, the objection, raised by 
the respondents-workmen for summoning of witnesses, was rejected as they 
would have a clear opportunity of cross-examining them.
2.4 Being aggrieved, the respondents-workmen challenged the 
aforesaid three orders of the Labour Court before the High Court by ﬁ ling 
8 
Review Petition No.46 of 2010.
HIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR. v. HIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ 
UNION & ANR. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
428 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order 
passed therein by the High Court has been challenged in the present appeal.
ARGUMENTS
3. Learned counsel for the appellants-Management submitted that 
a preliminary objection was raised by the appellants before the Labour 
Court regarding maintainability of the reference since the appellants-
Management all along had employed more than 100 workmen. In view of 
Section 10 of the ID Act, in cases where claim is made regarding wages and 
allowances as provided in the Third Schedule of the ID Act with reference 
to an establishment where there are more than 100 workmen employed, the 
reference of dispute has to be made to the Industrial Tribunal. In the case 
in hand, ignoring this fact, the Labour Commissioner made the reference 
of dispute to the Labour Court. The Labour Court while adjudicating 
the claims ignored the admission on the part of the representative of the 
respondents-workmen that there were more than 100 workmen employed 
with the appellants-Management. The appellants-Management had placed 
before the High Court clinching material to establish that there were 
more than 100 workmen in the establishment, which was in the form of 
certiﬁ cates from the Employees State Insurance Corporation and Life 
Insurance Corporation from whom the appellants-Management had taken 
a group gratuity policy for its workmen. Though there was some lapse in 
leading
evidence before the Labour Court, the same was on account of the 
fact that in his cross-examination, the representative of the respondents-
workmen had admitted that there were more than 100 workmen employed 
in the establishment. 
3.1 He further submitted that as it was an issue of jurisdiction of the 
Labour Court to adjudicate the matter, the High Court had given liberty to 
the appellants-Management to approach the Labour Court for correction 
of the error. The Review Petition8 ﬁ led by the respondents-workmen was 
dismissed by the High Court. Even the objections raised by the respondents-
workmen before the Labour Court were rejected, while noticing that the 
workmen would have full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, 
being summoned by the appellants-Management to establish that there were 
more than 100 workmen employed in the establishment. The evidence was 
clinching as it had to come from Employees State Insurance Corporation
429
and Life Insurance Corporation. However, when the respondents-workmen 
challenged the aforesaid orders before the High Court, the plea of the 
respondents was accepted. It was observed that the appellants-Management 
shall not be entitled to lead evidence to disturb the ﬁ nding recorded by the 
Labour Court as liberty was granted to the appellants-Management only for 
correction of the factual error and the same shall be limited in terms of Rule 
28 of the Rules9 or at the most, Section 152 of the Code10. The argument 
was that order as such was not assailed on merits.
3.2 Submission is that the documents sought to be produced by 
the appellants-Management go to the root of the case on the question of 
jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate the matter. When the same 
were placed before the High Court by the appellants-Management while 
challenging the Award of the Labour Court dated 10.02.2006 being prima 
facie satisﬁ ed with the argument, liberty was granted to move an application 
before the Labour Court for correction of the factual error. In case, correction 
of factual error needs some evidence, that would be permitted.
3.3. In support of the arguments that the court can remand the matter 
to the Labour Court, reliance was placed on the judgments of this Court in 
Santhosh Bansi Mahajan v. State Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh 
and others, (1984) Supp. SCC 193 and Bundi Zila Petrol Pump Dealers 
Association, Bundi v. Sanyojak Bundi Zila Petrol Mazdoor
Sangh 
(BMS), (2019) 5 SCC 337.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted 
that it is too late to reopen the entire issue, nearly, after two decades. The 
reference was made to the Labour Court on 07.08.2002. Many of the 
workmen have already retired and some have even expired. Whatever 
evidence was led by the appellants-Management, on the basis thereof, 
ﬁ nding was recorded that the appellants-Management had not employed 
more than 100 workmen and the Labour Court had jurisdiction to deal with 
the questions referred. Mere admission by one of the representatives of the 
respondents-workmen, who appeared before the Labour Court, would not 
9 
The Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957
10 Civil Procedure Code, 1908
HIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR. v. HIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ 
UNION & ANR. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
discharge the onus cast on the appellants-Management to prove that it had 
employed more than 100 workmen. The evidence sought to be produced 
now is in the form of returns ﬁ led, after the reference was made. The prayer 
is for dismissal of the appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 
relevant record.
DISCUSSION
6. Before we deal with the merit of the controversy in issue, we deem it 
appropriate to discuss the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and the Industrial 
Tribunal for reference of a dispute. It is for the reason that the claim of the 
appellants-Management is that it employed more than 100 workmen.
7. Section 10(1) of the ID Act inter alia provides that where appropriate 
Government is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is 
apprehended, it may, by an order in writing, refer the dispute to the ‘Labour 
Court’ if it relates to the issues speciﬁ ed in the Second Schedule. Where the 
matter relates to the issues speciﬁ ed in the Third Schedule, the dispute is 
to be referred to a Labour Court, if the dispute is not likely to aﬀ ect more 
than 100 workmen. Otherwise,Section 10(1)(d) of the ID Act provides that 
the disputes as enumerated in the Third Schedule are to be referred to a 
Tribunal. The aforesaid two terms have been deﬁ ned in Section 2(kkb) and 
2(r) of the ID Act, respectively. Relevant provisions of Section 10(1) of the 
ID Act are extracted below:
“10. Reference
of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals:-
(1) Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial 
dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing-
(a) refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement 
thereof; or 
(b) refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant 
to the dispute to a Court for inquiry; or
(c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, 
or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matter speciﬁ ed 
in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication; or
431
(d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to connected with, or 
relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter speciﬁ ed 
in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for 
adjudication:
Provided that where the dispute relates to any matter 
speciﬁ ed in the Third schedule and is not likely to aﬀ ect more 
than one hundred workmen, the appropriate Government may, 
if it so thinks ﬁ t, make the reference to a Labour Court under 
clause (c)”
8. The Second and the Third Schedules attached to the ID Act required 
for proper appreciation of the arguments, are extracted below:
“THE SECOND SCHEDULE
MATTERS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF LABOUR 
COURTS
1. 
The propriety or legality of an order passed by an employer under 
the standing orders;
2. 
The application and interpretation of standing orders;
3. 
Discharge or dismissal of workmen including reinstatement of, 
or grant of relief to, workmen wrongfully dismissed;
4. 
Withdrawal of any customary concession of privilege;
5. 
Illegality or otherwise of a strike or lock-out; and
6. 
All matters other than those speciﬁ ed in the Third Schedule.
THE THIRD SCHEDULE
MATTERS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF INDUSTRIAL 
TRIBUNALS
1. 
Wages, including the period and mode of payment;
2. 
Compensatory and other allowances;
3. 
Hours of work and rest intervals;
4. 
Leave with wages and holidays;
HIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR. v. HIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ 
UNION & ANR. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
432 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
5. 
Bonus, proﬁ t sharing, provident fund and gratuity;
6. 
Shift working otherwise than in accordance with standing orders;
7. 
Classiﬁ cation by grades;
8. 
Rules of discipline; 
9. 
Rationalisation;
10. Retrenchment of workmen and closure of establishment; and
Any other matter that may be prescribed.”
9. A perusal of the aforesaid Schedules shows that the matters, 
enumerated in the Second Schedule, are falling in the jurisdiction of the 
Labour Court. Whereas the matters, as mentioned in the Third Schedule, are 
within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal with the only exception that 
for dispute provided in the Third Schedule; if not more than 100 workmen 
are aﬀ ected, reference is to be made to the Labour Court.
10. In the case in hand, reference of the following disputes was made 
by the Labour Commissioner, Indore to the Labour Court, Dewas vide order 
dated 07.08.2002:
“1. Whether it is justiﬁ ed to grant wage increase to the workmen 
working in the Company? If so, what should be the plan for the same?
2. Whether according to the ability, seniority and experience, grading 
has to be made and whether it would be justiﬁ ed to decide a policy 
for wage ﬁ xation according to these grades? If so, what should be the 
structure of such policy?
3. Whether it is justiﬁ ed to give Dearness Allowance to the workmen? 
If so, what should be the quantum of the same?
4. Whether it is justiﬁ ed to increase the House Rent
Allowance, 
Conveyance Allowance and Washing Allowance of the workmen of 
the Company? If so, what should be the plan for the same?
5. Whether it is justiﬁ ed to department-wise classify the number of 
permanent workmen? If so, what should be the plan for the same?
433
6. Whether it is justiﬁ ed to provide Education Allowance, Canteen 
Allowance, and Night Allowance? If so, what should be the plan for 
the same?
7. Whether it is justiﬁ ed to restart Attendance Allowance to the 
workmen of the Company as was given to them earlier, to increase 
rate of the same and to compensate them for the discontinued period? 
If so, what should be the plan for the same?
8. As provided earlier, whether it is justiﬁ ed to allow earned leaves 
to a workman even if he has worked for less than 240 days in a year?
9. Whether in past, the weekly oﬀ  was not adjusted in allowing the 
earned leaves? What should be the justiﬁ cation of restarting the same 
arrangement?
10. Whether the other beneﬁ ts as provided by ISO certiﬁ ed Companies 
are justiﬁ ed to be provided to the workmen of this Company?”
11. A perusal of the aforesaid issues which were referred by the Labour 
Commissioner to the Labour Court shows that these pertain primarily to 
the wages and allowances which exclusively fall within the jurisdiction of 
the Industrial Tribunal, in case more than 100 workmen are to be aﬀ ected.
12. In this light, the stand taken by the appellants-Management is that 
in the establishment of the appellants-Management, there were more than 
100 workmen, hence, reference of the dispute to the Labour Court was 
without jurisdiction and consequently, any award passed by the Labour 
Court is not sustainable. When the matter was being adjudicated by the 
Labour Court, the
appellants-Management raised a preliminary objection 
regarding its jurisdiction, for which an additional issue was also framed, 
which reads as under:
“1. Whether this court has not got jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate 
this matter since there being employed more than 100 workmen in the 
factory of Party on Second Part?”
13. Some evidence was led by the appellants-Management in terms 
of which from the year 2001 to 2005, there were 92 workmen employed 
in the establishment. However, there was categoric admission made in the 
cross-examination of Kishori Lal Sharma, who appeared as a witness on 
HIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR. v. HIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ 
UNION & ANR. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
434 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
behalf of the workmen, stating that there are more than 100 workmen in 
the factory but in their Union only 85 of them are members. The Labour 
Court found that there being less than 100 workmen, the dispute was rightly 
referred to the Labour Court. Final Award was passed on 10.02.2006. The 
same was challenged by the appellants-Management before the High Court 
by ﬁ ling the writ petition7. The argument raised before the High Court was 
that there was a jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Labour Court 
as the Management had a strength of more than 100 workmen. It was prayed 
that the writ petition may be disposed of with liberty to the Management to 
approach the Labour Court for correction of factual error. The writ petition 
was disposed of vide order dated 06.01.2010 with liberty as prayed for. 
Review Petition8  was ﬁ led by the respondents-workmen against the aforesaid 
order. However, the same was dismissed on 12.03.2010. Thereafter, the 
matter was taken up before the Labour Court.
14. The appellants-Management ﬁ led an application before the Labour 
Court bearing I.A. No.1/2010 submitting various documents showing that 
the Management had employed more than 100 workmen from 1999-2000 till 
2009-2010. These were in the form of the documents from Employees State 
Insurance Corporation, Life Insurance Corporation, Employees Provident 
Fund Organisation etc. After hearing counsel for both the parties, the Labour
Court vide order 30.06.2010, admitted the application and permission was 
granted for annexing the documents. It was noticed in the order that in case 
the appellants-Management employed more than 100 workmen, the Labour 
Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issue. As the High Court had 
granted liberty for correction of factual error to substantiate that there were 
more than 100 workmen, the appellant could place on record the documents. 
The objections, raised by the respondents-workmen, were dismissed by a 
separate order dated 12.08.2010. Thereafter, vide order dated 06.10.2010, 
the application (I.A. No.2/2010) ﬁ led by the appellants-Management seeking 
permission to summon the oﬃ  cial witnesses to prove the documents placed 
on record was allowed with the observation that no prejudice as such would 
be caused to the respondents-workmen, as they will have the opportunity 
to cross-examine the witnesses.
15. A Writ Petition was ﬁ led by the respondents-workmen, to challenge 
the aforesaid orders, which was allowed by the High Court while setting
435
aside the orders dated 30.06.2010, 12.08.2010 and 06.10.2010 passed by 
the Labour Court. 
16. As the number of workmen employed in the establishment has a 
direct relation with the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or the Industrial 
Tribunal to deal with the matter, we deem it appropriate to refer to the 
material which was placed on record by the appellants-Management before 
the Labour Court, after the earlier Writ Petition ﬁ led by the appellants-
Management was disposed of with liberty to the Management to move for 
correction of factual error. The documents are as under:
(i) A certiﬁ cate dated 26.05.2010 issued by the Employees State 
Insurance Corporation giving details of the number of employees 
shown in the returns ﬁ led by the Management with the Corporation 
from the year 1999-2000 to 2009-2010.
(ii) A certificate dated 07.06.2010 issued by the Life Insurance 
Corporation giving details of the number of workmen for which 
contribution was being made on yearly basis for the workmen under the 
Group Gratuity Policy. The details pertain to the years 2000 to 2009.
(iii) A certiﬁ cate dated 07.06.2010 of the Management showing the 
number of workmen for which returns were being ﬁ led with the 
Employees Provident Fund Organisation, for their contribution towards 
provident fund and family pension fund. The details pertain to the 
years 1999-2000 to 2009-2010.
(iv) A certiﬁ cate dated 07.06.2010 issued by the Life Insurance 
Corporation showing contribution on
yearly basis for the workmen 
employed with the Management under Employee’s Deposit Linked 
Insurance. The details pertain to the years 2000 to 2009.
(v) A certiﬁ cate dated 07.06.2010 by the Management giving detail 
of the number of workmen who were paid bonus under the Payment 
of Bonus Act each year. The details pertain to the years 1999-2000 
to 2008-2009.
17. A perusal of the aforesaid documents prima facie shows that more 
than 100 workmen were employed by the appellants-Management from 
1999-2000 to 2009-2010.
HIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR. v. HIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ 
UNION & ANR. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
436 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
18. The reference in the case was made by the Labour Commissioner 
to the Labour Court vide order dated 07.8.2002.
19. Another important fact to be noticed here is that, when an 
application was ﬁ led by the appellants-Management on 18.08.2000 under 
Section 25-N of the ID Act seeking permission to retrench 45 workmen 
w.e.f. 01.12.2000, the same was rejected by the Labour Commissioner, 
Indore vide order dated 16.10.2000. In the aforesaid order, a statement of 
year wise production and sales, and average workmen employed on a daily 
basis has been extracted. It is from the year 1990-1991 till 1999-2000 for 
completed years and for the months of April to August 2000. In all these 
years, the average daily workmen employed were more than 100 except in 
the year1999-2000, when these were shown to be 99.
20. An application was filed by the respondents-workmen on 
09.10.2001 with the appellants-Management raising certain demands. It was 
on the basis thereof that, reference was made to the Labour Court by the 
Labour Commissioner vide order dated 07.08.2002. Meaning thereby, that 
the record showing that the appellants-Management was employing more 
than 100 workmen, was available and was a part of the earlier proceedings 
before the Labour Commissioner.
21. On the issue as to whether a matter can be remitted back to the 
Labour Court for a decision afresh, guidance is available from judgment of 
this Court in Santhosh Bansi Mahajan’s
case (supra). It was a case where 
a document on which reliance was placed by the workmen was not placed 
before the Labour Court when the matter was considered. It was placed 
on record for the ﬁ rst time before this Court. Liberty was given by this 
Court to ﬁ le the said document before the Labour Court and the matter was 
remitted back to the Labour Court to be decided afresh. Similar issue had 
come up for decision before this Court in Bundi Zila Petrol Pump Dealers 
Association’s case (supra) wherein an ex-parte Award was passed against 
the Management. This Court, ﬁ nding that there were suﬃ  cient reasons for 
the absence of the Management before the Tribunal, set aside the Award 
and the matter was remanded to the Industrial Tribunal giving liberty to the 
appellant before this Court to ﬁ le the written statement and lead evidence. 
22. In the case in hand as well on the facts, as noticed above, we ﬁ nd 
that the matter needs to be re-examined by the Labour Court, as the material
437
permitted to be placed on record will go to the root of the case in determining 
the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate the matter. The material 
sought to be relied upon by the appellants-Management to substantiate its 
plea has been brieﬂ y referred to in paras 16 and 19 of this order.
23. For the reasons, mentioned above, we ﬁ nd merit in the present 
appeal. The same is accordingly allowed. The impugned order passed by the 
High Court dated 11.05.2011 as well as the orders of the Labour Court dated 
30.06.2010, 12.08.2010 and 06.10.2010, are set aside. The matter is remitted 
back to the Labour Court, Dewas for adjudication afresh, after permitting 
the appellants-Management to lead evidence to substantiate the plea that 
they were employing more than 100 workmen during the relevant period. 
Needless to add, that the respondents-workmen will also have an opportunity 
to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the appellants-Management, 
and also lead their own evidence, in case need so arises. Since the matter is 
quite old, we direct the Labour Court, Dewas to dispose of the same within 
a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
24. The appellants-Management shall deposit costs quantiﬁ ed at 
₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with the Labour Commissioner, Indore 
within a period of six weeks, which shall be disbursed to the workmen 
working with the appellants-Management, equally by directly transferring 
the proportionate
amounts in their bank accounts. Needful shall be 
done within four weeks of deposit. Needless to add that the appellants/
Management shall cooperate in the process.
25. We may clarify that while passing the above order, we have not 
expressed any opinion on merits of the controversy.
Headnotes prepared by:  
Appeal allowed.
Ankit Gyan
HIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR. v. HIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ 
UNION & ANR. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]