Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Employers Association vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 October, 2020
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna, Ravi V Hosmani
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
WRIT APPEAL Nos.2304-2309/2018 (L-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL Nos.2310/2018, 2311-2313/2018,
2314-2315/2018, 2316-2317/2018, 2318/2018,
2612/2018, 2613/2018(L-RES)
IN W.A.NOs.2304-2309/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION,
NO.74, 2ND FLOOR, SHANKARA ARCADE,
VANIVILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560 004
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. ADITYA AUTO PRODUCTS & ENGG (I) (P) LTD.,
13E, KIADB, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
DODDABALLAPUR,
BENGALURU - 561 203.
REPRESENTED BY IT HEAD HR
-: 2 :-
3. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,
UNIT HARIHARA PLOYFIBERS,
P.O.KUMARAPATAM DIST,
HAVERI, KARNATAKA - 581 123.
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT.
4. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,
UNIT GRASILENE DIVISION,
P.O.KUMARAPATAM DIST,
HAVERI, KARNATAKA - 581 123.
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT.
5. MYSORE POLYMERS & RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD.,
A001 VAISHNAVI SAROVAR,
PLOT NO.4 4-E AND 5-E,
DEVARAJA MOHALLA,
YADAVAGIRI MYSORE - 570 020.
6. MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL MOGUL
GOETZE INDIA LTD.,
YELAHANKA,
DODDABALLAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 064.
REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD HR MARULUSIDDA.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA, FOR
SRI. B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-: 3 :-
2. ALL INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS
KARNATAKA STATE COMMITTEE NO.6
SIRUR PARK ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM
BANGALORE - 560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS GEN SECRETARY.
3. ALL INDIA CENTRAL COUNCIL OF TRADE UNION
(AICCTU)
NO.16/3, MUNIKADIRAPPA LAYOUT
GRAPHITE INDIA ROAD, HOODY
BANGALORE - 560 048
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PRESIDENT.
4. ENGINEERING AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
GHATE BHAVAN
GD PARK EXTENTION, VYALIKAVAL
BENGALURU - 560 003
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
5. FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE INDIA (TPR)
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 64
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
6. K JAYARAMAN
S/O LATE P.K.S.MURTHY
#15, 6TH CROSS,
NEAR SHL COLLEGE,
SANTHOSH NAGAR, ATTUR
BENGALURU - 64.
7. M CHANDRASHEKARA RAO
S/O LATE MUNISHAMA RAO,
#162, B 6TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN,
BAPUJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 64.
-: 4 :-
8. S V NAGARAJAIAH
S/O VARADHARAMAIAH
#31/1, MAHAVEERA NILAYA
ATTUR, 1ST MAIN, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU - 64.
9. CENTRE OF INDIAN TRADE UNION
KARNATAKA STATE COMMITTEE
NO.40/5, 2ND B MAIN,16TH CROSS,
SAMPANGIRAMNAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY.
10.BHARATHIYA MAZDOOR SANGH
BMS OFFICE, SC ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 067
REPRESENTED BY STATE PRESIDENT
KARNATAKA STATE
11.M/S. J.K. TYRES AND INDUSTRIES LTD.,
VIKRANT TYRE PLANT, K.R.S ROAD,
METAGALLI, MYSORE-570 016.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER HR/IR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A C BALARAJ, LEARNED AGA FOR R1;
SRI. K B NARAYANA SWAMY, ADV., FOR R2,4 & 5;
SRI. K SUBBARAO, LEARNED SENIOR ADV., FOR
MAITHREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. C VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8;
SRI. SATHEESH K N, ADVOCATE FOR R9 AND
SRI. NAGABHUSHAN, ADV., FOR R10 V.C.O
28/8/18;
R11 IS DELETED V.C.O DATED 17/09/2018)
-: 5 :-
IN W.A.NO.2310/2018:
BETWEEN:
SWAN SILK (P) LTD.,
POST BOX NO. 25210,
40, 4TH CROSS, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 025,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA FOR
SRI. B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. ALL INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS
KARNATAKA STATE COMMITTEE NO.6
SIRUR PARK ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM,
BANGALORE - 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS GEN SECRETARY.
3. ALL INDIA CENTRAL COUNCIL OF
TRADE UNION (AICCTU),
NO.16/3, MUNIKADIRAPPA LAYOUT,
GRAPHITE INDIA ROAD, HOODY,
BANGALORE - 560 048.
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PRESIDENT.
...RESPONDENTS
-: 6 :-
(BY SRI. A C BALARAJ, LEARNED AGA FOR R1;
SRI. K SUBBARAO, LEARNED SENIOR ADV., FOR
MAITHREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
IN W.A.NOs.2311-2313/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. KIRLOSKAR ELECTRICAL CO LTD.,
1ST CROSS, MAIN ROD,
PEENYA 1ST STAGE,
PEENYA II PHASE,
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BENGALURU - 560 058.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SR GENERAL
MANAGER LEGAL COMPANY SECRETARY.
2. ULTRA TECH CEMENTS LTD.,
UNIT RAJASHREE CEMENTS WORKS,
ADITYANAGAR, MALKHED ROAD,
GULBARGA - 585 292
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER.
3. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD.,
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS
INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY)
NEHRU NAGAR OPPOSITE VILLAGE,
P.B.ROAD, NH4,
YAMANAPUR, BELAGAVI - 590 010.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
UNIT HEAD BELAGAVI WORKS.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA FOR
SRI. B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
-: 7 :-
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KIRLOSKAR ELECTRIC COMPANY
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, NO.212,
1ST MAIN ROAD, 18TH STAGE,
SUBRAMANYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 021.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. MICRO LABS LTD.,
#27, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT
HUMAN RESOURCES.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A C BALARAJ, LEARNED AGA FOR R1;
SRI. V R DATAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
IN W.A.NOS.2314- 2315/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. WIPRO ENTERPRISES LTD.,
PLOT NO.4,
ANTHARASANAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
TUMKUR - 572 106
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT,
EMPLOYEES RELATIONS.
-: 8 :-
2. BHORUKA EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,
#1-KRS ROAD-MARTAGALLI,
MYSORE - 570 016.
NOW REPRESENTED BY
ITS FACTORY MANAGER.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA, FOR
SRI. B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. INCAP CONTRACTING MANUFACTURING
SERVICES PVT. LTD.
PNDITHANAHALLI, HIERHALLI POST,
TUMKUR-572 104.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,
BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
KOPPAL DISTRICT-583 223
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER - HR.
4. RANE ENGINE VALVE LTD.,
PLOT NO.36B& 37,
HIERHALLI INDUSTRIES AREA,
TUMKUR-575 104.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORIES.
...RESPONDENTS
-: 9 :-
(BY SRI. A C BALARAJ, LEARNED AGA FOR R1;
R2 TO R4 ARE DELETED V.C.O DATED 17/09/2018)
IN W.A.NOS.2316-2317/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. VENLON ENTERPRISES,
26 P, GATE II, BELAVADI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
HUNSUR MAIN ROAD,
BELVADI, MYSURU-570 018.
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
2. NECTAR BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,
P.B.NO.205, K.C. PARK,
P.O. DHARWAD-580 008.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER HR AND IR.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA, FOR
SRI. B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. NKG INDIA COFFEE PVT. LTD.,
903, BRIGADE RUBIX,
NO.20, HMT MAIN ROAD,
PHASE-1, PEENYA,
BENGALURU-560 013
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
-: 10 :-
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A C BALARAJ, LEARNED AGA FOR R1;
R2 IS DELETED V.C.O DATED 17/09/2018)
IN W.A.NO. 2318/2018:
BETWEEN:
TRIVENI TURBINE LIMITED,
12-A, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BANGALORE-560 058
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER-PERSONNEL
AND ADMIN M.S. RAVEESHA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA, FOR
SRI. B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD.,
1, 2, 3 INDUSTRIAL AREA,
METAGALLI POST,
MYSORE-570 016.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A C BALARAJ, LEARNED AGA FOR R1;
R2 IS DELETED V.C.O DATED 17/09/2018)
-: 11 :-
IN W.A.NO.2612/2018:
BETWEEN:
GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,
CHEMICAL DIVISION, KARWAR,
P.O.BINAGA - 581 307,
DIST: UTTAR KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SR GENERAL MANAGER HR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA, FOR
SRI. B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. A C BALARAJ, LEARNED AGA FOR R1)
IN W.A.NO.2613/2018:
BETWEEN:
M/S AUTOMOTIVE AXLES LTD,
HOOTAGALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
OFF HUNSUR ROAD, MYSORE - 18.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER HR.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA, FOR
SRI. B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATES)
-: 12 :-
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. A C BALARAJ, LEARNED AGA FOR R1;
SRI. SUMANTH KUMAR S PATIL, FOR PROPOSSED
IMPLEADING APPLICANT ON I.A.1/19;
SRI. K N SATHEESH, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSSED
IMPLEADING APPLICATNT ON I.A.NO.2/19
& 4/19 & ALSO ON I.A.1/20;
SRI. K GOWDA RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING
APPLICANT ON I.ANO.3/19)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER
SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
29/06/2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN WRIT PETITION NOS.14756-577/2017 AND 15094-
096/2017 AND 15129/2017 (L-RES) C/W WRIT
PETITION NOS.14643/2017, 16100-102/2017,
17196/2017, 17198/2017, 18532-533/2017,
19784/2017, 23436/2017, 23661/2017 AND ALLOW
THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN
ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY,
NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-: 13 :-
JUDGMENT
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned AGA for the respondent- State and perused the material on record so also the original records.
2. After arguing for some time, learned counsel appearing for the appellants sought permission to withdraw the writ petitions namely, W.P.Nos. 14576-14577/2018 and 14578/2017 and other connected matters.
3. While making the said submission, learned counsel also drew our attention to the penultimate para of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.06.2018. He submitted that what was amended by Notification No.LD-72-LET-2013, Bengaluru, dated 27.03.2017 was the Model Standing Orders but in so far as the appellants herein are -: 14 :- concerned, they have Certified Standing Orders and the Model Standing Orders do not apply to them. He submitted that in terms of the Notification dated 27.03.2017, the Model Standing Orders were amended so as to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. Since the Model Standing Orders do not apply to the appellants who have their separate Certified Standing Orders, it is only as and when the Certified Standing Orders are amended insofar as the appellants are concerned the enhancement in the age of superannuation would apply.
4. However, our attention was drawn to the penultimate para of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge to contend that a direction has been issued to the employees to be given the monetary benefits including backwages for the period they were kept out of employment despite the enhancement of -: 15 :- the age of superannuation and such a direction would not apply in the case of the appellants. Therefore, the writ petitions may be permitted to be withdrawn.
5. Further, one of the learned counsel for the appellants, Shri. Datar, during the course of his submissions, drew our attention to the fact that in the case of four appellants namely, Grasim Industries Limited, Unit Harihara Poly Fibers; Grasim Industries Limited Chemical Division, Karwar; Management of Federal Mogul Goetze India Pvt. Ltd.; WIPRO Enterprises Ltd., Yelahanka, the Certified Standing Orders of these appellants have been since modified incorporating the enhanced age of superannuation at 60 years. All these appellant companies have assailed the same before this Court and this Court has stayed the amendment made to the Certified Standing Orders. Therefore, this aspect may be taken note of in these appeals while permitting all the appellants -: 16 :- herein to withdraw these appeals.
6. To this argument, learned Sr. Counsel, Shri. K Subba Rao contended that the Certified Standing Orders were amended much prior to the impugned Notification dated 27.03.2017 and there were interim orders passed in the writ petitions filed by these appellants and also in these writ appeals and therefore, the interim orders passed in these proceedings ought not to come in the way of the employees getting the benefit of the enhanced age of superannuation in the event these appellants are unsuccessful in their proceedings before this Court.
7. Insofar as the aforesaid appellants are concerned, since they are before this Court challenging the incorporation of the enhanced age of superannuation to the Certified Standing Orders, they are at liberty to pursue the said challenge before this -: 17 :- Court. However, if they are unsuccessful, then the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions and the interim orders passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in these appeals would not come in the way of the employees having the benefit of the amendment to the Certified Standing Orders incorporating the age of superannuation as 60 years. However, from the date of impugned Notification i.e., 27.03.2017 till today if any Certified Standing Orders of any of the appellant companies have been modified incorporating the age of superannuation to 60 years, then from the date of the Certified Standing Orders, the employees of such appellants shall be entitled to the benefit of the same subject to any challenge to be made by the appellants and the interim order passed in these appeals would not be applicable subject to any challenge to be made by the appellants.
-: 18 :-
8. The detailed narration of the facts and contentions would not call for reiteration, but, to highlight the following inferences:
1) The Model Standing Orders amended by Notification dated 27.03.2017 do not apply to these appellants as they have Certified Standing Orders.
2) As and when the Certified Standing Orders are amended to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, the appellants would then have a cause of action to assail the same, if so advised, in accordance with law.
But in the absence of impugned Notification dated 27.03.2017 being applicable to them, these petitioners approached this Court without there being any cause of action to do so and when these petitioners were not in any way -: 19 :- aggrieved by the said Notification as it was not applicable to them.
9. Now, leaned counsel for the appellants submits that the penultimate para of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge would be adverse to these petitioners and therefore the writ appeals may be dismissed as not pressed. The penultimate para of the learned Single Judge reads as under:
"115. Secondly, the said contention requires to be rejected in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that mere technical infringement not resulting in any substantial prejudice would be of no consequence. In the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was mandatory on the part of the petitioners to demonstrate substantial prejudice caused to them or at least that they have been prejudicially affected by the omission on the part of the State to consult the stake holders. Additionally, it also requires to be rejected, because the delay has not only not caused any prejudice to the petitioners but on the other hand has enabled the similarly placed parties to participate and file their objections and participate in the -: 20 :- discussions long after the time stipulated for filing of objections was over. The fact that the discussions have been held with the stake holders is apparent from Annexure-C placed on record by the petitioners. From a bare reading of the provision it is apparent that only a consultation is prescribed and no adjudicatory process is mandated.
In view of the above, the writ petitions require to be rejected and in view of the conditional interim order granted, it is clarified that the employees who have retired during the pendency of the petitions, such of those employees shall be entitled for their monetary benefits including back wages for the period during which they have been kept out of employment on account of superannuation during the pendency of the writ petitions."
10. It is clear that since the Certified Standing Orders of these appellants have not been modified so as to incorporate the enhanced age of superannuation; the direction issued above would not have been issued by the learned Single Judge to these petitioners/appellants herein. However, there was -: 21 :- also an interim order of stay of the same granted in these appeals by a Coordinate Benches of this Court.
11. Since we are permitting the appellants to withdraw these writ appeals, the certified Standing Orders if have not been modified so as to incorporate the enhancement of the age of superannuation the aforesaid direction would not apply to them.
12. But what emerges from the above is the fact that when the impugned Notification dated 27.03.2017 do not apply to these appellants without having any cause of action or being aggrieved by the same, these appellants approached this Court and are now seeking withdrawal of the writ petitions/writ appeals. They are also seeking liberty to assail the Certified Standing Orders if they are so amended by the incorporating the enhanced age of superannuation.
-: 22 :-In the circumstances, we permit the appellants herein to withdraw the writ appeals subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- each to the High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
However, from the date of impugned notification i.e., 27.03.2017 till today if any Certified standing Orders of any of the appellant companies have been modified incorporating the age of superannuation to 60 years, then from the date of the Certified Standing orders, the employees of such appellants shall be entitled to the benefit of the same subject to any challenge to be made by the appellants and the interim order passed in these appeals would not be applicable subject to any challenge to be made by the appellants.
-: 23 :-
Further, liberty is also reserved to the appellants to assail any amendment being made by the Certified Standing Orders of these appellants with regard to the enhancement in the age of superannuation, in accordance with law.
In view of the aforesaid order, all impleading applications are ordered to be filed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv