such disputes once made are required to be adjudicated on facts and the evidence. The factual controversy cannot be adjudicated in OA by the Tribunal or by the High Court in a writ petition.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL  APPEAL No.3290 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.4072 of 2016)
Sunil Kumar Biswas ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Ordinance Factory Board & Ors.     ….Respondent(s)
               
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   final
judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 passed by
the High Court at Calcutta in WPCT No.82 of 2015
whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition
1
filed   by   the   appellant   and   respondent   Nos.4­6
herein.
3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the
disposal of the appeal, which involved a short point.
4. The appellant and respondent Nos.4­6 herein
approached   the   Central   Administrative   Tribunal
(CAT),   Calcutta     against   respondent   Nos.1­3
(Ordinance Factory Board & Ors.) in OA No. 159 of
2013 praying therein for a relief that they have been
appointed by the Contractor to render their services
with the Ordinance Factory Board (respondent No.1
herein) which they have been doing from the last 25
years,   therefore,   they   claimed   a   relief   that   their
services be regularized.
5. The   Tribunal,   by   order   dated   23.05.2013,
dismissed   the   OA   filed   by   the   appellant   and
respondent Nos.4­6 which gave rise to filing of the
2
writ   petition   by   them   before   the   High   Court   at
Calcutta.
6. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed
the writ petition and held that the remedy of the
appellant   and   respondent   Nos.   4­6     lies   in
approaching the Central Government in making a
reference to the Industrial Tribunal under Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter
referred to as “ID Act”). It is against this dismissal of
the writ petition, the unsuccessful writ petitioners
felt aggrieved and have filed this appeal by way of
special leave in this Court.
7. So,   the   short   question,   which   arises   for
consideration   in   this   appeal,   is   whether   the
Tribunal   and   the   High   Court   were   justified   in
dismissing the  OA and writ petition.
3
8.   Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
find no merit in this appeal.
9. In our opinion, the High Court was right in
observing   that   the   remedy   of   the   appellant   and
respondent Nos.4­6 herein (writ petitioners) lies in
applying   to   the   Central   Government   to   make   an
industrial reference to the Industrial Tribunal under
Section 10 of  the ID Act in relation to the dispute
which has arisen between them but not to pursue
their remedy for adjudication of their grievance by
filing OA before the Tribunal or/and writ petition in
the High Court.
10. Having regard to the nature of the controversy
raised by the appellant and respondent Nos.4­6, we
are also of the considered view that their remedy
lies in getting their alleged dispute settled by the
4
Industrial Tribunal in a reference under Section 10
of ID Act.
11. The reason is that such disputes once made
are   required   to   be   adjudicated   on   facts   and   the
evidence.   The   factual   controversy   cannot   be
adjudicated in OA by the Tribunal or by the High
Court in a writ petition. 
12. We,   therefore,   find no good ground to take
any   other   view   than   the   one   taken   by   the   High
Court while declining to entertain the writ petition.
13. Needless to say, if the reference is eventually
made to the Industrial Tribunal at the instance of
the   appellant   and   respondent   Nos.4­6   by   the
Central Government on their request under Section
10 of the ID Act and issue in question is gone into
on facts, the same shall then be decided strictly in
accordance   with   law   by   the   Industrial   Tribunal
uninfluenced   by   any   observations   made   by   the
5
Tribunal, the High Court and this Court in these
proceedings.
14. The   appeal   thus   fails   and   is   accordingly
dismissed.       
                                     .………...................................J.
                                   [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]   
                               
     …...……..................................J.
             [DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
March 29, 2019
6