11. The need to remand the case has been occasioned on account of one factual error committed by the High Court while dealing with two submission of the appellant (employer) in Para 34 of the impugned order. It is noticed that while dealing with the submissions of the appellant(employer), viz., that the reference made to the Industrial Tribunal is improperly and presumptuously worded and secondly, the Industrial Tribunal travelled beyond the scope of the reference, the High Court instead of quoting the reference, by mistake quoted the operative portion of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and treated the operative portion of the award as reference and proceeded to examine the submissions and rejected the same.12. In our opinion, this being obviously an error apparent on the face of the record of the case and 7 rightly admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, we have no option but to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the High Court for deciding the writ petitions afresh on merits. We express no opinion on any of the issues dealt with by the High Court in the impugned order.

Non­Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11063 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 28379 of 2018)
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing
Company Ltd.         …..Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Engineering Workers’ Association
& Ors.         …..Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11067 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(C ) No. 28393 of 2018)
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing
Company Ltd.         …..Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Engineering Workers’ Association
& Ors.         …..Respondent(s)
1
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.11064­11066 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 28386­28388 of 2018)
Mazda Services Etc.         …..Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing
Company Ltd. & Ors.         …..Respondent(s)
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11068 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(C ) No. 28437 of 2018)
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing
Company Ltd.         …..Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Engineering Workers’ Association
& Ors.         …..Respondent(s)
               
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
2
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against  the final
judgment and order dated 29.08.2018 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P.(C)
Nos.3150/2017,   3188/2017   and   3189/2017
whereby   the   High   Court   disposed   of   the   writ
petitions filed by the appellant herein and upheld
the   award   dated   02.03.2017   passed   by   the
Industrial   Tribunal,   Maharashtra,   Mumbai   in
Reference (IT) No.15 of 2006.
3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in
these appeals, few facts need mention hereinbelow.
4. An   industrial   reference   (IT)  15  of   2006   was
made by the Commissioner of Labour under Section
10 of  the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred   to   as   “the   ID   Act”)     to   the   Industrial
Tribunal at the instance of the Engineering Workers’
3
Association(respondent   herein).   The   industrial
reference reads as under:
“Company shall take into its employment the
99   workmen   who   are   working   through   the
devise of the contractor M/s Mazda Services
and   whose   names   here   inter   impleaded   as
Complainants   in   Complaint   (ULP)   No.529   of
1995 w.e.f. 30.05.1995 and to pay them the
differences   in   wages   and   other   benefits   as
paid to the regular workmen of the company
and to continue to pay the same thereafter.”
5. The Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company
Ltd.   (employer),   Engineering   Workers’   Association
(Workers’   Association),   Godrej   Boyce   Shramik
Sangh   (recognized   union)   and     Mazda   Services
(contractor)   filed   their   respective   statements   in
support   of   their   case   and   also   adduced   their
evidence.   The   Tribunal,   by   awards   dated
23/24.07.2014 answered the references in favour of
the employer.
4
6. The   workers’   Association   felt   aggrieved   and
filed petitions bearing W.P.(C) Nos. 819, 820 and
821 of 2015 in the High Court of Judicature   at
Bombay   and   questioned   therein   the   legality   and
correctness of the awards. By common order dated
11.08.2015,   the   High   Court   allowed   the   writ
petitions   and   while   setting   aside   the   awards
remanded the cases to the Industrial Tribunal for
deciding the references afresh on merits.
7. By   award   dated   02.03.2017,   the   Industrial
Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the
Workers’   Association.   In   answering   so,   the
Industrial  Tribunal   also  directed   the  employer  to
pay   a   lump   sum   amount   of   Rs.   5   lacs   to   each
workman. The  employer felt aggrieved and filed writ
petitions (Nos.3150,3188 & 3189/2017) in the High
Court. By impugned order, the High Court upheld
5
the award of the Industrial Tribunal but quashed
the direction pertaining to payment of Rs. 5 lacs to
each workman.
8. Against   this   order   of   the   High   Court,   the
employer and the contractor have felt aggrieved and
filed the present appeals by way of special leave in
this Court.
9. Heard   Mr.   P.S.   Patwalia,   Mr.   J.P.   Cama,
learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr.
Vinay Navare,  learned counsel for the respondents.
10. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are inclined to allow the appeals and while setting
aside the impugned order remand the case to the
High Court for deciding the writ petitions afresh on
merits.
6
11. The   need   to   remand   the   case   has   been
occasioned   on   account   of   one   factual   error
committed by the High Court while dealing with two
submission of the appellant (employer) in Para 34 of
the impugned order. It is noticed that while dealing
with   the   submissions   of   the   appellant(employer),
viz.,     that   the   reference   made   to   the   Industrial
Tribunal is improperly and presumptuously worded
and   secondly,   the   Industrial   Tribunal   travelled
beyond the scope of the reference, the High Court
instead of quoting the reference, by mistake quoted
the operative portion of the award passed by the
Industrial   Tribunal   and   treated   the   operative
portion of the award as reference and proceeded to
examine the submissions and rejected the same.
12.  In our opinion, this being obviously an error
apparent on the face of the record of the case and
7
rightly admitted by the learned counsel appearing
for the respondents, we have no option but to set
aside the impugned order and remand the case to
the High Court for deciding the writ petitions afresh
on merits. We express no opinion on any of the
issues dealt with by the High Court in the impugned
order. 
13. In our view, the mistake being apparent, the
impugned order deserves to be set aside on this
ground alone.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals
succeed   and   are   accordingly   allowed.   Impugned
order is set aside. The writ petitions out of which
these appeals arise are restored to their respective
numbers for their disposal on merits in accordance
with law.
8
15. We, however, make it clear that we have not
expressed our opinion on any of the issue arising in
the case having formed an opinion to remand the
case   to   the   High   Court.   The   High   Court   will,
therefore,   decide   the   writ   petitions   afresh
uninfluenced by any of our observations strictly on
merits.
16. We request the High Court to dispose of the
writ   petitions,   expeditiously,   preferably   within   6
months.                               
                   .
……...................................J.
                      [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
               
                                         …...................................J.
                       [INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi,
November 16, 2018.
9