Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Davangere Cotton Mills vs The Asst. Labour Commissioner on 12 April, 2023

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                   -1-
                                                             WP No. 43466 of 2012




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

                                                 BEFORE

                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 43466 OF 2012 (L-RES)

                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    DAVANGERE COTTON MILLS
                            A DIVISION OF THEN
                            M/S MORARJI GOKULDAS SPINNING &
                            WEAVING COMPANY LTD.,
                            (NOW KNOWN AS PENINSULA LAND LIMITED)
                            1, PENINSULA SPENTA, MATHURADAS MILLS,
                            SENAPATI BAPAT MARG,
                            LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400 013
                            REPRESENTED BY THE
                            ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (HR)
                            MR. SUBRATA SAHA
                                                                     ... PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. K. KASTURI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
                          SRI K. MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally signed by
R HEMALATHA               M/S. KASTURI ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                      AND:

                      1.    THE ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER
                            BELLARY DIVISION,
                            DAVANGERE
                            AND THE REGISTRAR UNDER THE
                            TRADE UNIONS ACT, 1926.

                      2.    DCM NONDA KARMIKARA SANGHATHANE
                            C/O NO.1805, OLD JANATA SAW MILL ROAD,
                            BAMBOO BAZAAR,
                            DAVANGERE - 577 001
                                   -2-
                                               WP No. 43466 of 2012




    REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
    G. RAMAKRISHNA.
                                                     ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R1;
    SRI VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
BEFORE THE R1 & R2 AND QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 10.1.07 IN MA NO.11/03 VIDE ANNX-J COLLY
HERETO AND 10.9.09 PASSED IN EX.C.NO.10/08 BY THE R2
DIRECTING THE R1 TO REGISTER THE R3 AS A TRADE UNION
UNDER THE TRADE UNION ACT 1926 VIDE ANNX-J-1 HERETO. AS
ALSO THE IMPUGNED REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
R1 TO THE R3 REGISTERING IT AS A TRADE UNION UNDER THE
TRADE UNIONS ACT 1926 BEING EXIBIT-K HERETO AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

The petitioner which was an industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 closed its establishment, and upon closure of the establishment, 1525 workmen opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme out of 1550 workmen and the remaining 25 workmen through respondent No.2 raised a dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

2. Pending consideration of such dispute, respondent No.2 submitted an application with respondent No.1 for registration of the Trade Union. The said application came to be rejected, against which order, -3- WP No. 43466 of 2012 respondent No.2 filed an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for Short 'the Act') before the learned District Judge concerned. The learned District Judge, Davanagere, by the impugned order dated 10.01.2007 directed the Authority concerned to register respondent No.2 as Union and also to issue a certificate of registration subject to respondent No.2 satisfying the other requirements of law.

3. Sri. K. Kasturi, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner - Establishment comes under the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, and as per Sub-section (aa) of Section 11(1) of the Act, Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, is the Appellate Authority to adjudicate the order passed by the Authority refusing to register the Trade Union. Hence, he submits that the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge, Davangere, directing the Authority concerned to register respondent No.2 - Trade union is without jurisdiction.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that Sub-section (aa) of Section 11(1) of the Act, was inserted with effect from 09.01.2002 and the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge was not taken by insertion of the said clause. Hence, he submits that the learned District Judge, Davanagere, had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.

-4- WP No. 43466 of 2012

5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Respondent No.1 by order dated 22.07.2000 refused to register respondent No.2 as trade union under the provisions of the Act. Petitioner - Establishment falls under the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal, Hubli. Respondent No.2 filed an appeal on 20.03.2003 before the learned District Judge, Davanagere, under Section 11(1) of the Act. As on the date when the appeal was presented before the learned District Judge, Davangere, Sub-section (aa) to Section 11(1) of the Act was inserted and the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, was vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate the order passed by the authority concerned refusing to register trade union.

7. Hence, in view of insertion of Sub-section (aa) to Section 11(1) of the Act, learned District Judge, Davanagere, as on the date when the appeal was filed by respondent No.2, had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal filed by respondent No.2. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge, Davanagere, is one without jurisdiction.

8. Accordingly, I pass the following:

-5- WP No. 43466 of 2012
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 10.01.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Davangere, in M.A.No. 11/2003 at Annexure-J and the impugned order dated 10.09.2009 passed by the Learned District Judge, Davangere, in Ex.C.No. 10/2008 at Annexure-J1 are hereby quashed.
(iii) The Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, to conclude the proceedings in I.D.No.30/2011 within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE VP