Karnataka High Court
Batliboi Ltd vs B. Krishnamurthy on 5 April, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
WP No. 28238 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 28238 OF 2014 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
BATLIBOI LTD.,
(FORMERLY KNOWS AS BATLIBOI SPM LIMITED)
PLOT NO.24, III MAIN,
VEERASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 100
REPRESENTED BY ITS
VICE PRESIDENT, BUSINESS HEAD
& AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SHRI SHAMIR KUMAR SANYAL
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S/O LATE S.N. SANYAL, PLOT NO.24, III MAIN,
VEERASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 100.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S N MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. T P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR B. KRISHNAMURTHY
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
KARNATAKA S/O DUGGA SHETTY,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.26,
11TH "A" CROSS,
SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION,
MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K S SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD
DATED 1.3.2013 IN I.D.NO.24/2012 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING
OFFICER, SECOND ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE AT
ANNEXURE-E.
-2-
WP No. 28238 of 2014
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the award dated 1.3.2013 passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D.No.24/2012, by which, the claim petition under Section 10 4A of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947, filed by the respondent herein was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent workmen to his original post with continuity of service and other consequential benefits.
2. Heard Mr. S.N. Murthy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner's counsel and Mr. K.S. Subramanya, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Respondent-workmen was appointed as Senior Engineer, Quality Control on 2.7.1994, and on 18-19/11/2011 submitted a resignation letter. Pending acceptance of the same, the petitioner sent a letter on 22.11.2011 for withdrawing his resignation. However, he received the relieving letter on 22.02.2011 from the petitioner-Management relieving the respondent-workmen from service with effect from 17.2.2012. Hence, the respondent-workmen raised a dispute under Section 10 (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. Before the Labour Court, though the petitioner- Management appeared through an advocate did not choose to file statement of objections nor disputed the claim of the workmen. The Labour Court after examining the evidence on -3- WP No. 28238 of 2014 record passed the impugned award, against which, the present petition is filed.
5. Specific contention of the petitioner-Management is that, the respondent-workmen was discharging the duties of the Manager as on the date when he was relieved from the service. Hence, he is not a workman as defined under Section 2
(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so as to invoke the provisions of the said Act, and consequently, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is without jurisdiction.
6. To substantiate the claim that the respondent- workmen was discharging his duties as a Manager, the petitioner-Management has produced copy of the order, promoting the workmen-respondent to the post of Manager. The respondent -workman however, contends that as on the date of when he was relieved from service, he was discharging the duties of a technician.
7. The controversy whether the respondent was working in technical cadre or Managerial cadre is the matter which can be adjudicated only upon the parties tendering evidence on this aspect. Though, the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for not contesting the claim of the workman, however, having regard to the nature of the controversy, it would be appropriate if the petitioner is granted with an opportunity to prove its case before the Labour Court subject to paying a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondent - workman towards arrears of wages and depositing the balance amount of -4- WP No. 28238 of 2014 arrears of wages before the Labour Court. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned award dated 1.3.2013, in I.D. No.24/2012, passed by the II Additional, Labour Court, Bengaluru is hereby quashed;
iii) The matter is remanded to the Labour Court for reconsidering the dispute afresh after providing an opportunity to the Petitioner-Management to file statement of objections and permit the parties to tender evidence.
iv) Petitioner-Management to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondent-workmen towards the arrears of wages from the date of award till the date of actual reinstatement and deposit the balance amount of Rs.4,13,425/- before the Labour Court on or before the next date of hearing.
v) Amount to be deposited and the reinstatement of respondent - workman is subject to the out come of the dispute.
vi) The Labour Court concerned to adjudicate the claim petition within three months from the date of next date of hearing.
All the contentions available in law are kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE HR