The Bombay High Court has clarified that Industrial Tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 possess no inherent power to review their own orders on substantive grounds. This ruling reinforces the principle that tribunals, as creatures of statute, cannot assume powers not expressly or by necessary implication conferred upon them.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, three workmen representing a group of approximately 30 employees of Sudarshan Chemical Industries Limited, challenged the Industrial Tribunal, Thane’s order dated 10 December 2024, which set aside its earlier order of 9 October 2023. The earlier order had permitted the workmen to be represented collectively by three authorised individuals, instead of through the Krantikari Kamgar Union, following objections by the employer regarding the Union’s locus standi.
Key Facts
- The petitioners were initially engaged as contract workers in 2000 after completing in-plant training in the trade of Chemical Process Operator.
- By 2008, around 700 such workers were employed under the nomenclature of "contract workmen."
- Between 1 August 2008 and 31 October 2008, they were temporarily engaged for three months amid industrial agitation.
- In 2014, they joined Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha Union and submitted a demand notice on 15 April 2014 seeking regularisation and parity in benefits.
- Conciliation proceedings commenced on 9 October 2016, with an understanding that workmen would be considered for permanent absorption upon passing internal tests.
- On 10 April 2017, they were appointed as permanent employees but designated as "Production Associate - Team Member (Technical)" and placed in a non-bargainable category despite performing duties identical to workmen.
- In 2018, they joined Krantikari Kamgar Union, a union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
- On 28 August 2018, the Union submitted a Charter of Demands.
- On 18 December 2020, the Government of Maharashtra referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as Reference (IT) No. 18 of 2020.
- On 21 July 2022, the workmen filed Exhibit U-6 seeking to be represented by three authorised representatives instead of the Union, due to the employer’s objection to the Union’s locus.
- The employer filed a reply on 19 June 2023 opposing the application.
Procedural History
- 9 October 2023: Industrial Tribunal allowed Exhibit U-6, permitting representation by three authorised workmen.
- 15 February 2024: Respondent Company filed Review Application (IT) No. 1 of 2024 seeking review of the 9 October 2023 order.
- 17 August 2024: Petitioners filed reply opposing the review application.
- 10 December 2024: Industrial Tribunal allowed the review, recalling its 9 October 2023 order, citing "inadvertent error or mistake of fact."
- 7 May 2026: Bombay High Court delivered judgment on Writ Petition No. 6404 of 2025.
The Parties' Positions
The petitioners contended that the Tribunal’s review order was an impermissible substantive review, while the respondent Company argued that the earlier order was based on a factual misapprehension regarding the recognition status of Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha Union.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the impugned order dated 10 December 2024 and restoration of the order dated 9 October 2023 permitting representation by authorised representatives.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 possesses the power to review its own order on substantive grounds, including re-evaluation of factual findings or legal conclusions, or whether its review jurisdiction is confined solely to correction of procedural defects.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. (2005) 13 SCC 777 to argue that the Tribunal’s review power is strictly limited to correcting procedural irregularities such as non-service of notice, hearing on an incorrect date, or failure to afford opportunity of hearing. They contended that the Tribunal’s review involved re-examination of the merits of representation - a substantive reconsideration not permitted under the Act. They further argued that the earlier order was passed after full hearing, with both parties having filed submissions, and thus no procedural defect existed to justify review.
For the Respondent
The respondent Company relied on Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal (1980) (Supp) SCC 420 to distinguish between procedural and substantive review. It submitted that the Tribunal’s earlier order was based on a mistaken belief that Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha Union was a recognised union with registration dated 13 April 2005 - a fact not substantiated in the record. It argued that correcting such a factual misapprehension fell within the ambit of procedural review. The Union, relying on Hanuman Maruti Mandir Deostan v. State of Maharashtra, contended that non-consideration of a material document could constitute a procedural defect, and that the Tribunal’s review was justified to correct an error going to the root of the matter.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the Tribunal’s review and distinguished between procedural and substantive review as laid down in Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union. The Court observed that procedural review addresses defects in the adjudicatory process - such as lack of notice, hearing on an unassigned date, or failure to consider submissions - whereas substantive review involves re-evaluating the correctness of the decision on merits.
"A procedural review is concerned with the manner in which the decision was arrived at. It addresses defects in the process, such as absence of notice, misunderstanding about service, or hearing being conducted improperly. In such cases, the order is not corrected because it is wrong in conclusion, but because the process itself was defective."
The Court found that the order dated 9 October 2023 was passed after full hearing, with the employer having filed a reply and the Tribunal having considered the rival submissions. There was no allegation of non-service, no hearing on an incorrect date, and no exclusion of material documents. The Tribunal’s review, therefore, did not correct a procedural lapse but re-examined the legal and factual basis of its own earlier conclusion - specifically, whether workmen could be represented by authorised individuals.
"Once that is so, the action falls within the category of review on merits. As already noted, such power is not available to the Tribunal in absence of statutory provision."
The Court rejected the respondent’s reliance on Hanuman Maruti Mandir Deostan, noting that case involved non-consideration of a document going to the root of the matter - a fundamentally different scenario. Here, both parties were heard, and the Tribunal applied its mind. The subsequent review was not about an omission but a change of view.
The Court emphasized that Industrial Tribunals derive their powers solely from statute. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, contains no provision for substantive review. Allowing such power under the guise of correcting "inadvertent error" would amount to judicial legislation and an enlargement of jurisdiction without authority.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the Industrial Tribunal’s order dated 10 December 2024. The order dated 9 October 2023 permitting representation by three authorised workmen was restored. The Court clarified that the respondent Company remains at liberty to challenge the 9 October 2023 order through appropriate legal proceedings, and all contentions on that front are expressly kept open. There shall be no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Review Cannot Be a Backdoor for Rehearing
- Practitioners must now argue that any review application seeking to overturn a tribunal’s decision on factual or legal merits is inherently invalid under the Industrial Disputes Act.
- Tribunals cannot revisit conclusions merely because they later believe they were mistaken - the remedy lies in appeal or writ, not review.
Procedural Defects Must Be Objective and Material
- A procedural defect must involve a failure in the adjudicatory process - not a disagreement with the outcome.
- Mere assertion of "inadvertent error" without proof of non-service, non-hearing, or exclusion of evidence will not sustain a review.
Representation Rights of Workmen Are Protected
- Workmen retain the right to represent themselves or authorise representatives, even without a recognised union, as affirmed in Yamaha Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Dharam Singh.
- Employers cannot use objections to union locus as a pretext to derail representation rights through procedural manipulation.
