Karnataka High Court
Kanara Dock And General Workers Union vs M/S Komala Sweets Stall on 13 August, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.45320 OF 2011(L-RES)
BETWEEN:
KANARA DOCK AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
KNRM FIRST BUILDING,
LIGHT HOUSE, HILL ROAD,
MANGALURU.
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
K.SADASHIVA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. ... PETITIONER
(BY MS.SHEELA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S.KOMALA SWEETS STALL
MAHALAKSHMI BUILDING,
HAMPANA KATTE,
MANGALURU.
BY ITS PARTNER B.V.NAGVEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS. ... RESPONDENT
(BY MS.SURABHI SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI HARIKRISHNA S.HOLLA, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD
DATED 25.01.2011 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL AT MYSURU IN REFERENCE NO.62 OF 1991
VIDE ANNEXURE-A ETC.,
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is a Union espousing the case of the employees, who are said to have worked with the Respondent-Unit.
2. It is the case of the petitioner-Union that the respondent is a factory at Mangaluru and is in the business of manufacturing varieties of sweets and savories, as well as other food products. The claim of the petitioner is that there are almost 100 workmen, who were employed therein. That certain demands of the workmen were refused by the respondent-Management without any justification. The matter was pending adjudication before 3 the Conciliation Officer. In the interregnum, the factory was closed.
3. A legal notice was issued with regard to the closure. It is further contended that no reasons were assigned for issuance of the notice. That the closure of the factory was illegal and done with a malafide intention. That a number of workmen including temporary workmen have worked in the respondent-unit for more than 12 months.
4. The dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal at Mangaluru. By the impugned order, the reference was partly allowed. The respondent herein was directed to pay three months average pay before the date of closure i.e., 28.01.1991, in terms of Section-25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act. Questioning the same, the petitioner-Union has filed the present petition.
5. Smt. Sheela Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner-Union contends that the impugned order is erroneous and requires to be interfered with. She relies on 4 an advertisement in a Public Newspaper of Mangaluru dated 10.09.2004, vide Annexure-27(M). The same would indicate that the respondent-Unit is still manufacturing sweets and other food products. That the finding of the Labour Court that the closure is justified is inappropriate. Hence, she pleads that the petition be allowed.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent disputes the said contention. She contends that the closure of the respondent-Unit is in accordance with law. That the licence to run the business was surrendered to the Corporation. The subsequent efforts to re-run the Unit also failed. Therefore, no interference called for.
7. On hearing learned counsels, I'am of the considered view that there is no merit in this writ petition. The closure is justified. However, what is being contended is that the closure is a sham. That the respondent-Unit is still undergoing production. Reliance is placed on a Paper Publication dated 10.09.2004, vide Annexure-27(M). A 5 Paper Publication without any evidence is no proof of a running Unit.
8. However, the material on record would indicate that the closure of the respondent-unit was beyond the control of the employer. That an attempt was made to restart the Unit which did not happen. The licence obtained to run the business was also surrendered to the Corporation. Therefore, on surrender of the licence and all other relevant papers, the closure is in accordance with law. The material and evidence with regard to a valid closure of the respondent-unit are not disputed by the petitioner-Union. Except the oral contention that the respondent-Unit still continues to function in the business, there is no material to substantiate the contention. In the absence of any material proof, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
9. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal are just and appropriate. It is based on the voluminous material 6 produced by respondent. Even otherwise, relief has been granted to the petitioner by the Tribunal in terms of the impugned order.
10. Under these circumstances, I do not find any ground to grant further relief to the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Rule discharged.
SD/-
JUDGE JJ