Karnataka High Court
Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
WP No. 11800 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 11800 OF 2019 (L-MW)
BETWEEN:
MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS,
HEAD OFFICE VINOBA ROAD,
MYSORE - 570 005,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER,
MR. GOPINATH SHENOY M.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KASTURI. K.A.,SR.COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SUBHA ANANTHI.K., ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMETN OF LABOUR,
Digitally signed by
R HEMALATHA
VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001,
Location: High
Court of
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
Karnataka
2. KARNATAKA PRADESH BHARATIYA,
MAZDOOR SANGH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
MR. K. VISHWANATH SHETTY,
C/O, BMS OFFICE, S.C. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.BHOJE GOWDA J KOLLER.,AGA FOR R1, R2 SERVED)
-2-
WP No. 11800 of 2019
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION DTD:2.1.2017 ISSUED BY THE STATE OF
KARNATAKA, LABOUR DEPARTMENT VIDE ANNEXURE-E ALSO
RESTRAIN THE STATE AUTHORITIES IN THE LABOUR
DEPARTMENT BY ISSUING A WRIT FORBEARING THEM FROM
ENFORCING THE NOTIFICATION DTD:2.1.2017 AT ANNEXURE-
E AND ALSO NOTICE DIRECTING THE PETITIONERS TO PAY
THE DEARNES ALLOWANCE RETROSPECTIVELY FOR THE YEAR
2015-16 TO 2017-18 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The respondent No.1 had issued a notification No.Kaa E 129 LWA 2014, Bangalore dated 08.04.2015 in exercise of the power under Section 31(B) and 51(B) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 exempting the Beedi Industry from payment of Variable Dearness Allowance to its workmen for the period 2015-2016.
2. The said notification was impugned by the Karnataka Pradesh Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh and another in WP No.46034-46035/2015. The Co-ordinate Bench of this -3- WP No. 11800 of 2019 Court by order dated 09.11.2016 quashed the said notification, on the ground that Trade Unions who are the affected parties were not provided with an opportunity of hearing before issuing the impugned notification.
3. The order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench was impugned by the management in W.A No.4197/2017 and connected writ appeal.
4. On an application filed by the Trade Union i.e., the petitioner in WP No.46034/2015, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn and consequently the notification issued was restored. Therefore, the 1st respondent issued the notification dated 02.01.2017 withdrawing the notification dated 08.04.2015 exempting the Beedi Industry from Payment of Variable Dearness Allowance against which the present petition is filed.
5. Smt. Kasturi K.A., Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Management submits that the impugned notification has adversely affected the rights of the management, and the said notification having been issued without issuing notice to the petitioner is in violation of -4- WP No. 11800 of 2019 provision of natural justice. Hence on this ground alone the impugned notification requires to be quashed.
6. Learned AGA for the State submits that in absence of any Pre-exerting statutory right in favour of the petitioner there way no requirement to issue notice to the management before withdrawing the notification. Hence in the absence of any violation of statutory right the impugned notification does not warrants any interference.
7. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is undisputed fact that on the request made by the Beedi industries, the Government as one time measure exempted the BDA from payment of Variable Dearness Allowance. There is no provision in the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for exemption from payment of Variable Dearness Allowances. The notification was issued as one time measurement, and in the absence of a provision in the Act, 1948 for granting exemption from payment of Variable Dearness Allowance, the management was not required to be heard before issuing the impugned notification. -5- WP No. 11800 of 2019
I do not find any illegality in the impugned notification issued by respondent No.1. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.
Pending I.A's does not survive for consideration, in view of disposal of the main matter.
It is needless to state that petitioner is at liberty to submit representation afresh to the State Government for exemption of payment of Variable Dearness Allowance, and if such representation is made, State Government is directed to consider the same in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE VS