Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Workers Union (R) vs M/S Emcee Crown Pvt Ltd on 6 December, 2013
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NOS.46062-46229/2012 (L-MW)
BETWEEN:
1. Karnataka Workers' Union (R),
Affiliated to CITU, a Trade Union,
Registered under the Indian
Trade Unions Act,
V.G. Gopal Building,
20/1, Lalbagh Fort Road,
Bangalore - 560 004,
By its Secretary.
2. Smt. Gowramma,
D/o. Chotte Gowda,
Aged 40 years.
3. Smt. S. Vasantha,
W/o. Raju,
Aged 40 years,
Designation: Helper.
4. Smt. Arasamma,
W/o. Ashwathaiah,
Aged 45 years,
Designation: Packing.
5. Smt. Leelavathi,
W/o. Basavaraj,
Aged 54 years,
2
Designation: Helper.
6. Smt. Puttamma Bommanna,
W/o. Marigowda,
Aged 43 years.
7. Smt. Gowramma V.,
W/o. Hanumantha,
Aged 32 years.
8. Smt. S.G. Uma,
W/o. T.S. Rajanna,
Aged 39 years.
9. Smt. Jaya R.,
W/o. Raju,
Aged 40 years.
10. Smt. Rukmini,
W/o. Nagaraju,
Aged 40 years.
11. Smt. Kaleemunissa,
W/o. Mehaboobsab,
Aged 46 years.
12. Sundramma,
W/o. Manjegowda,
Aged 40 years,
Designation: Packing.
13. Jayalakshmi,
W/o. Puttaswamynayak,
Aged 45 years,
Designation: Packing.
14. Prema,
W/o. Raju,
Aged 30 years,
3
Designation: Beeder Operator.
15. Smt. Lakshmamma T.,
W/o. Thammaiah,
Aged 48 years.
16. B. Yashodamma,
W/o. Guruswamachar,
Aged 45 years,
Designation: Helper.
17. Smt. Sumithramma M.V.,
W/o. Venkataramaiah,
Aged 40 years.
18. Smt. Venkatamma,
W/o. Thimmegowda,
Aged 39 years.
19. Sri Ravikumar M.S.,
S/o. Shankarappa,
Aged 34 years.
20. Sri S. Raghu,
S/o. Thimmanna,
Aged 34 years.
21. Sri T. Mahesh,
S/o. Thimmanna,
Aged 34 years.
22. Sri Rajesh B.,
S/o. Bangalooraiah,
Aged 32 years.
23. Sri K.M. Satheesh,
S/o. Mallaiah,
Aged 29 years.
4
24. Sri Mutthuraju H.S.,
S/o. Hombalegowda,
Aged 29 years.
25. Sri Kempaiah,
S/o. Kempaiah,
Aged 46 years.
26. Sri Maridevaru P.,
S/o. Puttaswamy,
Aged 32 years.
27. Sri J. Ravi,
S/o. Javaregowda,
Aged 30 years.
28. Sri M.G. Sathya,
S/o. Gendsiddaiah,
Aged 32 years.
29. Sri Shivalingaiah S.,
S/o. Shekaiah,
Aged 45 years.
30. Smt. Gangamma K.,
W/o. Shivalingaiah,
Aged 35 years.
31. Sri Shashidhar N.,
S/o. B.Nanjappa,
Aged 32 years.
32. Sri Prakash P.,
S/o. P. Puttaswamy,
Aged 30 years.
33. Sri Manjunath C.,
S/o. Chikkanna,
5
Aged 30 years.
34. Sri P. Harish Rai,
S/o. late Omprakash,
Aged 32 years.
35. Smt. Ammayyamma,
W/o. Chikkanna,
Aged 54 years.
36. Smt. Sarojamma,
W/o. late Siddappa,
Aged 48 years.
37. Sri Srikanth V.,
S/o. R. Venkataswamy,
Aged 32 years.
38. Sri Govindaiah,
S/o. Cheluvaiah,
Aged 35 years.
39. Sri P. Ramesh,
S/o. Picchandi,
Aged 35 years.
40. Smt. Lakshmamma V.,
W/o. Venkataraju,
Aged 38 years.
41. Sri V. Rudraswamy,
S/o. Venkatesh,
Aged 34 years.
42. Sri H.R. Kumar,
S/o. Rajashekhar,
Aged 30 years.
6
43. Smt. Sumithra,
W/o. Gangadhar,
Aged 36 years.
44. Sri Deepak Yadav M.Y.,
W/o. Yathiraj K.,
Aged 28 years.
45. Sri H.V. Bangerappa,
S/o. Venkataiah,
Aged 56 years.
46. Smt. Ramamaini S.,
D/o. Siddaramaiah,
Aged 40 years.
47. Smt. Narasamma,
W/o. Channagiriyappa,
Aged 40 years.
48. Sri Ramadurga,
S/o. Munimarappa,
Aged 42 years.
49. Sri P.S. Rajamani,
S/o. Shankar,
Aged 35 years.
50. Sri Prakash H.R.,
S/o. Rajashekhar,
Aged 29 years.
51. Sri Rameshkumar R.,
S/o. Ramachandraiah,
Aged 29 years.
52. Smt. Lakshmamma S.,
W/o. Samandaiah,
Aged 34 years.
7
53. Sri A.H. Srinivas,
S/o. Honnegowda,
Aged 42 years.
54. Sri V.K. Lokesh,
S/o. Krishnamurthy,
Aged 31 years.
55. Sri Jagadeeshkumar,
S/o. Shivalingaiah,
Aged 32 years.
56. Sri P. Krishna,
S/o. Puttaswamygowda,
Aged 27 years.
57. Sri Mallikarjuna Gowda R.,
S/o. Gadilingana Gowda,
Aged 34 years.
58. Smt. Tulasamma M.,
W/o. Mallesh B.H.,
Aged 35 years.
59. Smt C.S. Yashoda,
W/o. Gopalakrishna,
Aged 45 years.
60. Sri Shivakumar H.V.,
S/o. Bommaiah,
Aged 30 years.
61. Smt. Gowramma D.,
W/o. Dasappa,
Aged 45 years.
62. Smt. Mala R.,
W/o. Raju,
Aged 43 years.
8
63. Smt. Uma C.,
D/o. Chowdappa,
Aged 35 years.
...PETITIONERS
(By Sri V.S. Naik, Adv.)
AND:
1. M/s. Emcee Crown Pvt. Ltd.,
39/4-B, 12th KM,
Kanakapura Road,
Bangalore - 560 062,
By its Managing Director.
2. The Labour Officer and the
Authority under the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948,
Sub-Division No.II,
Karmika Bhavana,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bangalore - 560 029.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri J. Kanikaraj, Adv. for R1;
Sri S. Lakshminarayana, AGA for R2)
These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order
dated 28.8.2010 and the order dated 13.1.2012 on memo
filed by the petitioner passed by the 2nd respondent the
certified copies of which are produced and marked as
Annexures-D & H respectively.
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in
'B' group this day, the Court made the following:
9
ORDER
Karnataka Workers' Union (R), represented by its General Secretary, filed these writ petitions on 15.11.2012. Subsequently, an I.A. was filed to permit Smt. Gowramma D/o Chotte Gowda and 61 others to come on record as additional petitioners. The application was allowed on 15.01.2013 and the applicants were permitted to come on record as additional petitioners. The cause title of the petition was amended accordingly.
2. Karnataka Workers' Union (R) CITU Office, V.G. Gopal Building, Bangalore, represented by its General Secretary, filed an application on 27.04.2004 before the Labour Officer and the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948/2nd respondent, against the Managements of M/s. Emcee Crown Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Metal Closures Pvt. Ltd., No.39/4-B, 12th KM, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore, claiming difference of Minimum Wages in respect of workers employed by the said two Industrial Establishments/Managements. Application was registered 10 as Case No.LOB/2/MWA/CR-173/2006 and CR-174/2006. Statement of objections were filed on behalf of the Managements. Six issues were raised, witnesses were examined and documents were marked on both the sides. Issue No.1 was answered against the applicant-Union. Issue Nos.2 to 5 were not answered. The application was rejected by the 2nd respondent on 31.03.2008, on the ground that single application against two Managements is not maintainable.
3. The Petitioner - Union filed before the 2nd respondent, a claim application on 04.07.2008, claiming difference of Minimum Wages in respect of the employees working in the 1st respondent company - M/s. Emcee Crown Pvt. Ltd. The application having been opposed, two issues were raised. By taking into consideration, the order passed on 31.03.2008 in Case No.LOB/2/MWA/CR- 173/2006 and CR-174/2006, the 2nd respondent arrived at a conclusion that the matter is hit by principles analogues to res judicata and as a result, passed an order 11 of rejection on 28.08.2010. A memo filed by the petitioner-Union, on 20.09.2010, to adjudicate the matter on merit was rejected on 13.01.2012 by the 2nd respondent. Assailing the orders passed on 28.08.2010 and 13.01.2012, vide Annexures- D and H and to direct the 1st respondent to pay the difference of Minimum Wages along with interest to all the workmen concerned in the claim petition filed by the petitioner-Union, these writ petitions have been filed.
4. In justification of the impugned orders, the 1st respondent has filed statement of objections.
5. Heard Sri V.S. Naik, learned advocate for the petitioners, Sri J. Kanikaraj, learned advocate for the 1st respondent and Sri S. Lakshminarayana, learned AGA for the 2nd respondent and perused the writ petition record.
6. The General Secretary of Karnataka Workers' Union (R), filed claim application on 27.04.2004 against the Managements of M/s. Metal Closures Pvt. Ltd., and 12 M/s. Emcee Crown Pvt. Ltd., to direct the Managements to pay the difference of minimum wages from 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2004. Subsequently, another application was filed against the same management for the period from 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002 and 02.07.2004 to 30.09.2004. Due to change of jurisdiction, the files having been transferred to the 2nd respondent were numbered as LOB- 2/MWA/CR-173/06-07 and LOB-2/MWA/CR-174/06-07. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were raised:
(1) Whether the application is maintainable for the reason that a single application is filed by the applicant-union for the workers employed in two different establishment as alleged by the Respondent?
(2) Whether the applicant proves that application is maintainable in respect of delay in filing the claim for more than six months and whether the reasons given by the applicant are justifiable? If so, to what period the delay is condoned?
(3) Whether the applicants proves that the Respondent Establishments are coming under Zone-I, and the applicant - employees were working under what designation?13
(4) Whether the applicant proves that the Respondents have paid less than the minimum wages to them? (5) To what amount of difference of wages and other relief that the applicants are entitle to?
(6) To What Order?
Both the sides adduced evidence. The 2nd
respondent dismissed the applications, by holding that it is not permissible to file a single application against two different managements in view of S.21 of Minimum Wages Act. Issue Nos.2 to 5 raised were not answered.
7. Separate claim applications having been filed on 04.07.2008 for the reliefs as against the two Managements, same having been opposed, following two issues were raised.
(1) Is the claim application barred by the principle of Res-judicata?
(2) Whether the delay for the period during which the earlier claim petitions were pending can be condoned?
8. The 2nd respondent being of the opinion that he has not been conferred with the power of review, 14 rejected the said application, vide Annexure-A, on the ground that the order passed on 31.03.2008 in Case Nos.173/2006 and 174/2006 operates as res judicata or analogous to principles of res judicata are attracted. A memo having been filed on 20.09.2010 by the petitioner- Union, the same was rejected on 13.01.2012, vide Annexure-H.
9. It is clear from the order dated 31.03.2008, as at Annexure-A, that the claim application was dismissed on the technical ground, that the applicant Union is unjustified in filing a single application against two different Managements. No findings on issue Nos.2 to 5 were recorded. By making a reference to the said order, when separate applications were filed against the two Managements, the order, vide Annexure-D was passed on 28.08.2010.
10. In the circumstances, the point for consideration is, whether the view taken by the 2nd respondent to reject the claim application filed on 15 04.07.2008 on the ground of principles analogous to res judicata are attracted suffers from any perversity or illegality?
11. The Rule of res judicata applies, if a matter "directly and substantially in issue", in a suit or proceeding, was "directly and substantially in issue", in the previous suit or proceeding between the same parties and had been "heard and finally decided" by the competent Court/Tribunal. The claim application filed on 27.04.2004 was rejected on 31.03.2008, on the ground that a single application against two Managements is not maintainable. When separate applications were filed against the respective Managements, the same have been rejected on the ground that the principles of res judicata or principles analogous to res judicata are attracted. The order at Annexure-A, makes it clear that the issues with regard to the claims made by the petitioner-Union for payment of difference of wages to the employees working in the respective establishments were not decided. 16
12. The doctrine of res judicata belongs to domain of procedure. The matters in issues i.e., issue Nos.2 to 5 were not decided by the 2nd respondent in the application filed on 27.04.2004 and decided on 31.03.2008. The claim made by the petitioner-Union having been denied by the respective Managements, issue Nos.2 to 5 were raised and though, findings were recorded, the said issues were not decided on 31.03.2008. The question of maintainability of the application against two different Managements being a pure question of law, unrelated to facts, which gave rise to the right, cannot be deemed to be a matter in issue between the parties. The rights of the employees put forth by the petitioner-Union, though was enquired into, was not adjudicated and findings were not recorded on issue Nos.2 to 5.
13. In the case of Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and others Vs. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, (1970) 1 SCC 613, it has been held as follows:
"10. A question relating to the jurisdiction of a Court cannot be deemed to have been finally determined by an 17 erroneous decision of the Court. If by an erroneous interpretation of the statute the Court holds that it has no jurisdiction, the question would not, in our judgment, operate as res judicata. Similarly by an erroneous decision if the Court assumes jurisdiction which it does not possess under the statute, the question cannot operate as res judicata between the same parties, whether the cause of action in the subsequent litigation is the same or otherwise."
14. In the case of Abdullah Ashgar Ali Khan Vs. Ganesh Dass, AIR 1917 PC 201, a suit was dismissed by the Court of Judicial Commissioner on the view that its constitution was defective and no opinion on the merits of the dispute between the parties was expressed. The judgment of the Judicial Commissioner was held not to operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between the parties to the previous suit, because the dispute was not decided on its merits in the previous suit expressly or even by implication. While considering the expression, "heard and finally decided" in S.10 of the British Baluchistan Regulation IX of 1896, the Court has held that where the suit was dismissed by two Courts on merits, but the decree 18 was maintained in second appeal, because, the suit was not properly constituted then the finality on the merits stood destroyed.
15. In Sheo Sagar Singh vs. Sitaram Singh, ILR (1997) 24 Cal 616, where parentage of defendant was decided in his favour by the Trial Court, but the High Court maintained the order, as the suit was defective, the claim of the defendant in the latter suit, that the finding on parentage operated as res judicata was repelled and it was held that the question of parentage had not been heard and finally decided in the suit of 1885.
16. From the said decisions, it becomes clear that, if a suit or proceeding was disposed of not on merits, but for want of jurisdiction or for being barred by time or for being defectively constituted, then the finality of the findings recorded by the Court/Authority on the other issues being unnecessary, do not operate as res judicata or principles analogous to res judicata are not attracted. 19
17. The application filed on 27.04.2004, registered as case Nos.173/06-07 and 174/06-07 were held as not maintainable, with reference to provision under S.21 of the Act against the two Managements. The rights of the parties were not adjudicated and decided by answering all the issues raised for determination. Hence, when separate applications were filed by the petitioner-Union, on behalf of the employees, against the respective Managements, on 04.07.2008, the 2nd respondent has committed an error and illegality in holding that the principles analogous to res judicata are attracted. The rejection of the application dated 20.09.2010 vide an order dated 13.01.2012 is unjustified, since the order dated 28.08.2010 itself being vitiated and arbitrary, is unsustainable.
In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. Consequently, the cases stand restored for consideration and decision by the 2nd respondent, only in respect of the individual writ petitioners/workmen, whose names appear in the cause of 20 these writ petitions. However, the Workers' Union can prosecute the claims/cases of the said workmen only. Contentions of both the parties are kept open. The 2nd respondent is directed to decide the case, expeditiously, by granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Ksj/-