Karnataka High Court
M/S Parle Products Pvt Ltd vs Government Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2012
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B. Adi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B. ADI
WRIT PETITION No.12702/2012(L-RES)
BETWEEN :
M/S PARLE PRODUCTS PVT LTD
15, K.M.STONE, TUMKUR ROAD, (N.H.NO.4),
BANGALORE-560 073,
REPRESENTED
BY SRI B BALACHANDRA RAI,
FACTORY MANAGER. ...PETITIONER
( BY SRI.C.K.SUBRAMANYA FOR B C PRABHAKAR, ADV. )
AND :
1 GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2 PARLE KWORKERS UNION
REG NO. D.R.T (B-3) 10/2010-11
25, 4TH CROSS, BYRAPPA LAYOUT,
NAGASHETTY HALLI,
BANGALORE-560 094
REPRESENTED BY K.S.SUBRAMANYA
PRESIDENT ...RESPONDENTS
2
( BY SRI. JAGADEESH MUNDARAGI, AGA FOR R1; R2 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ORDER OF
REFERENCE DT.10.4.12, PASSED BY THE R1, GOVT. OF
KARNATAKA LABOUR DEPARTMENT,VIDE ANN-O. b) ORDER
DT.10.4.12, PASSED BY THE R1, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA
LABOUR DEPARTMENT PROHIBITING LOCK-OUT VIDE ANN-P.
QUASH THE ORDER OF REFERENCE DT.10.4.12, PASSED BY
THE R1, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA LABOUR DEPARTMENT,VIDE
ANN-O & ETC.,
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though the second respondent - Union is served, it has remained unrepresented.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for respondent No.1 - State.
3. The petitioner - management has called in question the order of reference by the Government dated 10.04.2012 produced at Annexure `O` and the order of the 3 Government dated 10.04.2012 lifting the lockout produced at Annexure `P`.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Workers` Union had made certain charter demands, for the same, the workers initially raised protest and obstructed the work. In this regard, the management approached the Civil Court in O.S. No.6116/2011 for a decree for permanent injunction and also sought for ex parte temporary injunction restraining the second respondent and their agents from interfering with the working of the industry.
5. The Civil Court by order dated 21.09.2011, restraining the Union and its members from obstructing the ingress and egress of the plaintiff`s men, materials, customers, managerial staff, security personnel and others and also their vehicles, in and out of the suit factory premises and also restrained them from holding any demonstration within a radius of 50 Meters from the suit 4 factory premises.
6. On appearance of the Workers` Union, the Civil Court by its order dated 31.01.2012, partly allowed the application filed by the management for temporary injunction and dismissed the application filed by the workers` union for vacating the ex parte temporary injunction, by restraining the trade union members from interfering with or causing obstruction to the free ingress and egress to the factory, to officers, officials and workers of factory and the movement of any vehicle in and out of the factory and the movement of raw materials, finished products into or outside the factory premises pending disposal of the suit. However, permitted the workers` Union to hold a demonstration in a peaceful and non-violent manner in the shed already put up by them abutting the compound wall adjacent to the factory main gate, however restrained them from using the gas cylinder for cooking in the said Shed in view of the special features of the factory till 5 the disposal of the suit.
7. The said modified order of injunction was called in question by the management in MFA No.1642/2012 in so far as allowing the workers` Union to hold demonstration in the shed abutting the compound wall adjacent to the factory main gate demonstration within the radius of 50 Meters. This Court, by its interim order dated 16.02.2012, restrained the defendant - Union from holding any demonstration within the radius of 50 Meters from the factory premises and the said MFA is stated to be still pending and interim order in operation.
8. In the meanwhile, workers` Union approached the Conciliation Officer and the Conciliation Officer, after having considered the same, sent a failure report. The State Government, mechanically has passed an order invoking Section 10(1)(c)/d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, intera alia mentioning that the members of the Union are on 6 strike and has referred the issues for adjudication as under:
"(1) Whether the lockout declared by the management is justified ?
(2) whether the order of suspension of the members of the Union is valid?"
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Civil Court initially had restrained the workers` Union from holding the strike. However, it was modified and the modified order of the trial court is stayed by this court, i.e., the demonstration or strike within the radius of 50 Meters of the Factory premises, was prohibited. Hence in law, there was no strike, despite the said order, the State Government without even referring to the documents and without even considering the nature of the dispute mechanically states that there was a strike and a lockout. At no point of time, lockout was declared by the management. Even today, the Factory is functioning. It is also stated that the suspension orders issued against certain workmen is against the enquiry pending and enquiry is in progress. The State Government 7 without any justification, has passed an order of reference, produced at Annexure `O` and the order for lifting the lockout as per Annexure `P`. Both the orders are erroneous and not sustainable in law.
10. Learned Government Advocate though tried to justify the orders passed by the Government, however submits that, if there is need for reconsideration, the same will be reconsidered.
11. In the impugned order at Annexure `O`, the Government refers that there was a strike. If there was a strike, then it is not known as to how government comes to the conclusion that the management has declared lockout. The Civil Court as well as this Court has banned the strike within the radius of 50 meters from the factory premises. Though there is no such lockout, contrary to the orders passed by the civil Court and this Court, the Government has held that there is a lockout. It is submitted by the learned 8 counsel for the petitioner that even today, the factory is functioning and there is no lockout declared.
12. The learned counsel for the management submits that, 60 employees are working in the factory and if the other members of the Union intend to join the work, they are not prevented from doing so subject to the condition that they give undertaking that they will not go on strike.
13. Having regard to these circumstances, even to invoke Section 10(1)(c) and (d) of the Act, the Government must form an opinion as to whether there is a dispute, which requires to be referred for adjudication. However, the State Government mechanically has referred the matter. Even to refer, it must form an opinion. Having not done so, the orders impugned are required to be set aside.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the first respondent dated 10.04.2012 produced at Annexures `O` and `P` are hereby set aside. 9 However, liberty is reserved to the respondent - Union to make appropriate application. If there is any dispute required to be referred, in such a case, this order will not preclude the Union from raising the dispute.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner
- management that the employees, who are on strike will be allowed to report to duty, if they are willing to do so by giving undertaking as per Annexure `M`. The said submission is placed on record.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma