Concession Made By Lawyer On Mixed Question Of Fact And Law Cannot Preclude Client From Reagitating The Point In Appeal: SC [Read Judgment]

In Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola, the bench comprising Justice RF Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran were considering correctness of a labour court decision, which had, based only on a concession made before it, held that a direct relationship exists between the employer and the workmen.

It was argued that concessions on mixed questions of fact and law cannot decide cases as the evidence as a whole has to be weighed and inferences drawn therefrom.

The bench referring to 2002 judgment in Swami Krishnanand Govindananad v. Managing Director, Oswal Hosiery, observed that even a concession on facts disputed by a respondent in its written statement cannot bind the respondent. The court further referred to C.M. Arumugam v. S. Rajgopal, which had observed thus: "That question is a mixed question of law and fact and we do not think that a concession made by the first respondent on such a question at the stage of argument before the High Court, can preclude him from reagitating it in the appeal before this Court, when it formed the subject-matter of an issue before the High Court and full and complete evidence in regard to such issue was led by both parties………."

The bench, referring to above judgments, said:

"Equally, where a question is a mixed question of fact and law, a concession made by a lawyer or his authorised representative at the stage of arguments cannot preclude the party for whom such person appears from re-agitating the point in appeal."

The court then set aside the labour court and high court orders.

Read Judgment