Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Minerals vs Government Of India on 28 February, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8217
WP No. 38107 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 38107 OF 2019 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS
CORPORATION LTD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
TTMC, 'A' BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR,
BMTC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT,
Digitally signed
by A K NEW DELHI
CHANDRIKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
KARNATAKA
SHARMSADAN, YESHWANTHPUR
INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, 2ND STAGE,
GORUGUNTEPALYA, TUMKUR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 022
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS
CORPORATION LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS
MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED)
TTMC A BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8217
WP No. 38107 of 2019
BMTC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027
...RESPONDENTS
(BY CGC FOR R1;
SRI.BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R2;
SRI.K.R.ANAND ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER/ENDORSEMENT DATED 21.12.2018 PASSED
BY THE R-1 AT ANNX-H TO THE W.P. & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition by Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Ltd., Employees Association (for short, 'Employees Association') is directed against Annexure-H bearing No.F.No.L-29011/24/2018-IR(M) dated 21.12.2018 wherein the Competent Authority - first respondent refused to make reference of dispute raised by the petitioner/Employees Association for adjudication, as it considered the dispute not fit for adjudication and for a further direction to first respondent to refer the dispute to the jurisdictional Central Labour Court for adjudication. -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:8217 WP No. 38107 of 2019
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa for petitioner, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent No.1, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Bopanna Belliappa for respondent No.2 and learned counsel Sri.K.R.Anand for respondent No.3 through video conference. Perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Employees Association Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa would submit that petitioner/Employees Association is a registered union of the third respondent/Corporation and the present writ petition is filed on behalf of 32 workmen, on failure of the first respondent to refer the dispute for adjudication. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Employees Association would submit that workmen are working in different categories such as Mazdoor, Driver, Technician, Machine Operators etc. Learned counsel would further submit that they have undergone skill test of the third respondent and they are qualified to be promoted to the post of Skilled Workmen. The third respondent conducted skill test, out of -4- NC: 2024:KHC:8217 WP No. 38107 of 2019 69 workmen, it granted promotion to 37 workmen and it refused promotion to 32 workmen to the Skilled Post. As such, it is submitted that Union made representation/petition before the Competent Authority i.e., second respondent - Assistant Labour Commissioner wherein the petitioner/Employees Association contended that the workmen demand for promotion on the basis of trade test/skill test and denial of promotion is the dispute which ought to have been referred for adjudication. The action of the second party/Management in not considering the workmen's request for promotion to the Skilled Workers Post is unfair, unjust and against the principles of natural justice.
4. Learned counsel would further submit that based on the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the year 1994, skill tests were conducted to the workmen, though qualified in such skill test, no promotion was accorded. On 21.01.2016, amendment to Cadre and Recruitment Rule was brought in and in accordance with the amended Cadre -5- NC: 2024:KHC:8217 WP No. 38107 of 2019 and Recruitment Rules, some of the workmen were not eligible for promotion. Learned counsel would submit that non-consideration of the workmen of petitioner/Employees Association under the old Cadre and Recruitment Rules and when the vacancies were existing as on the date of their skill test would be arbitrary and unreasonable. Further, learned counsel would submit that when the vacancies are existing, the workmen of petitioner/Employees Association have a right to consider their case for promotion. Thus, he submits that the Competent Authority ought to have referred the dispute with regard to promotion for adjudication. Learned counsel would also submit that first respondent Central Government - the competent authority could not have gone into merit or otherwise of the demands of the petitioner/Employees Association and further he submits that consideration of petitioner/Employees Association's grievance for reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, '1947 Act') is only an administrative act and it has to form an opinion as to -6- NC: 2024:KHC:8217 WP No. 38107 of 2019 whether the dispute exists for reference. In that regard, learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAM AVTAR SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER1.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.K.R.Anand on behalf of the respondents would submit that there was no vacancy for promotion, though skill test was conducted in the year 1998. He submits that out of 69 workmen, 37 workmen were promoted and there was no vacancy for 32 workmen to be promoted to the Skilled Workmen Post. Further, he would also submit that out of 32 persons, 7 persons were promoted on 25.01.2017. Learned counsel Sri.K.R.Anand for respondent No.3 would submit that respondent No.3 has furnished all the details of the workmen and on going through those details, the Competent Authority has come to the conclusion that there is no dispute existing for adjudication. Thus, he 1 (1985) 3 SCC 189 -7- NC: 2024:KHC:8217 WP No. 38107 of 2019 supports the endorsement issued by respondent No.1 dated 21.12.2018 at Annexure-H.
6. It is settled position of law that the Competent Authority under Section 10(1) of 1947 Act would perform an administrative act and forms an opinion as to the factual existence of an industrial dispute (RAM AVTAR SHARMA AND OTHERS) (supra). Dispute or difference arises when one party makes a demand and the other party rejects the same. Unless there exists industrial dispute no reference is to be made. At the time of taking a decision whether a reference is to be made or not, the appropriate Government shall not go into the merits of the dispute. On the basis of material on record, satisfaction of the existence of the industrial dispute is necessary.
7. In the case on hand, petitioner/Employees Association sought for reference of their dispute with regard to promotion to 32 workmen who had undergone skill test in the year 2008 itself based on the 1994 Cadre and Recruitment Rules. Though no workmen has a right -8- NC: 2024:KHC:8217 WP No. 38107 of 2019 for promotion, every workmen has a right for consideration of their case for promotion. It is the case of the petitioner/Employees Association that 32 workmen were entitled and qualified for promotion to the Skilled Post. Though vacancies were available, they were not promoted. A perusal of the impugned endorsement dated 21.12.2018 would indicate that the Competent Authority has formed opinion that it is not a dispute fit for adjudication on the following reasons:
"The Union raised dispute vide letter dated 04.01.2018. The management submitted that among the 32 workmen, 7 have been promoted on 25.01.2017 and the Union agreed to this. Regarding the remaining 25 workmen, the management gave reasons as to why they cannot be promoted and the reasons appeared valid as these workmen were found lacking in the minimum qualifications set up for promotion to the higher grades (Reference Cadre and Recruitment Rules, 2015)."
8. The Competent Authority could not have gone into the question as to workmen were qualified or were -9- NC: 2024:KHC:8217 WP No. 38107 of 2019 lacking in minimum qualification while forming an opinion as to whether it is a fit case for adjudication. The opinion formed by first respondent - Central Government would itself indicate existence of dispute. Therefore, it is a fit case to direct the first respondent to re-consider its decision and pass appropriate order under Section 10 of 1947 Act, taking into consideration the petitioner/Employees Association's claim settlement as well as the objection filed by respondent No.3. Hence, the following:
ORDER
a) Writ petition is allowed.
b) Letter of the first respondent bearing No.F.No.L-29011/24/2018-IR(M) dated 21.12.2018 is set aside.
c) The matter is remanded back to the first respondent for re-consideration in accordance with law in terms of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:8217 WP No. 38107 of 2019
d) Time for compliance: three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE NC CT:JR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38