Karnataka High Court
M/S Krishna Fabrications Privated ... vs The Secretary To The Government Of ... on 27 July, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NOS.38239 & 38240 OF 2010 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S.KRISHNA FABRICATIONS
PRIVATE LIMITED,
NO.6-A, I PHASE,
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BENGALURU - 560 058.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
HR AND ADMIN.
SRI G.BABU. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI K.M.RAJU
HOUSE NO.370,
JAYARAM BUILDING,
(NEAR MASJID),
TUMAKURU ROAD,
2
T.DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 057.
3. SRI M.MANIVASAGAN
NO.528, 3RD CROSS,
1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE,
HMT LAYOUT,
MATHIKERE,
BENGALURU - 560 054. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI J.M.UMESH MURTHY, HCGP FOR R1
SRI K.G.SHANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 7.8.2010 PASSED
BY THE RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-G.
*****
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of reference made by the State Government in terms of Annexure-G, pertaining to an Industrial Dispute which was 21 years old. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NEDUNGADI BANK LTD., v. K.P.MADHAVANKUTTY AND OTHERS reported in 3 2000(1)LLJ 561, he pleads that the petitions be allowed on the ground of delay itself.
2. Respondents 2 & 3 were employed with the petitioner. They did not report for duty even after repeated call letters were issued to them. Articles of charge were issued for unauthorised absence. There was no response. They were terminated with effect from 23-6-1989.
3. The 2nd respondent filed application No.11 of 1991 before the Labour Court, Bengaluru which was transferred to the Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru and renumbered as Application No.13 of 1994. The said application was filed under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming uniform allowances, milk allowance, canteen subsidy, washing allowance and annual bonus. There was no request by the 2nd respondent seeking employment or reinstatement. The said application was dismissed by the Labour Court on 8-1-2002 in respect 4 of the claims, except for a sum of Rs.900.75/- towards earned wages of May 2009 and Rs.200/- towards annual bonus.
4. So far as the 3rd is concerned, no reinstatement was claimed. By the order dated 8-1-2002 the application was dismissed except for a claim of Rs.167/- towards earned wages of May, 2009 and Rs.200/- towards annual bonus.
5. Later, on 29-12-2009 the respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a claim petition before the Conciliation Officer on grounds of refusal of work. A claim was set up for reinstatement of both the respondents. The petitioners appeared before the Conciliation Officer and submitted their objections. The same was referred for adjudication. Thereafter, by the impugned order the State referred the matter for dispute with regard to the refusal of employment of the workman. 5 Questioning the reference, the management have filed these petitions.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the claim received after 21 years of dismissal, cannot be entertained. That there was no dispute pending for the last 21 years. That even in the matter of adjudication before the Labour Court, the claim was only for certain benefits of earned wages. There was no claim for reinstatement. The said claim has been raised for the first time in the year 2009 namely, after 21 years therein. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid and on the order of the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA, BHADRAVATHI vs. SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS reported in 2009-II LLJ 269(KANT). Therefore, he pleads that the petitions be allowed. 6
5.(a) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents disputes the same. He contends that there is no delay as contended by the petitioner. That consistently, letters were being written to the 1st respondent therein for relief. Therefore, the dispute is kept pending for the last 21 years. In support of his case he relies on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SAPAN KUMAR PANDIT vs. U.P.STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS reported in 2001(2) LLJ 788 with reference to paras, 9,10 & 15 and contends that the question of delay would have to be considered with reference to a pending dispute. In the instant case also, there is no delay in view of the fact that a number of letters thereof were written to the petitioner.
(b) I'am unable to accept such a contention. Para- 5 of the aforesaid Judgment clearly narrates the fact that the workman therein was terminated in 1975 along with others. Ten of those raised a dispute in 1976. Subsequently, the same went up for adjudication and 7 ultimately to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 1989. The case of the workman therein was that he was under
an expectation that the Board would extend benefit to him and therefore was waiting for the adjudication. The adjudication therein was concluded in the year 1989. The reference was made in the year 1993. Therefore, even if those dates are concerned, there is nearly a delay of 4 years. The delay was occasioned due to the pending dispute between the workman and the management. Apparently, it is not the case herein. There is no dispute between any workmen and the management on reinstatement. The only dispute was with regard to payment of certain amounts which also has been paid. Therefore, this Judgment would not be applicable either on facts or on principle.
(c) The facts herein would indicate that there was no pending dispute between the management and the workmen for the last 21 years with regard to reinstatement. There was no claim whatsoever by the 8 workmen seeking reinstatement on the ground of retrenchment and others. The only plea by the workmen was with regard to claims towards earned wages, annual bonus etc. There is not even a plea for reinstatement.
The reinstatement has been pleaded for the first time only after 21 years. Therefore, there is a huge delay in the same. Hence, it could be seen that the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SAPAN KUMAR's case would not be applicable.
(d) The second Judgment relied on is in the case of G.T.LAD AND OTHERS vs. CHEMICALS AND FIBRES OF INDIA reported in 1979 (1) LLJ 257 with reference to paras 3, 4 and 6. He, therefore, pleads that the question for consideration is whether there was abandonment of service or retrenchment.
(f) The facts herein indicate that there was no question of abandonment or retrenchment that was pending adjudication. What was considered was the plea of the respondent only with regard to certain benefits of 9 earned wages only. The Judgment has no nexus with the facts of this case. Therefore, it is not applicable.
6. Under these circumstances, the claim for reinstatement being set up after 21 years cannot be accepted. When admittedly, there is no pending dispute between the workmen and the management, the delay becomes fatal. Therefore, the State committed an error in referring the stale dispute for adjudication.
Consequently, the petitions are allowed. The Reference made in terms of Annexure-G dated 7-8-2010 by the first respondent - the Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Department of Labour, Bengaluru, is quashed.
Rule made absolute.
SD/-
JUDGE Rsk/-