Karnataka High Court
Shri Honnappa vs M/S Parle Products Limited on 30 September, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:40584
WP No. 24903 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 24903 OF 2024 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. HONNAPPA,
S/O SHRI. DURGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.43, I MAIN,
2ND CROSS, MANJUNATH NAGAR,
NAGASANDRA POST,
TUMKUR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 073.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAGHUPATHY S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. PARLE PRODUCTS LIMITED,
Digitally 15TH K.M. STONE,
signed by
SUMA B N TUMKUR ROAD,
Location: BENGALURU - 560 073.
High Court
of ...RESPONDENT
Karnataka
(BY SRI.VASUKI K.N., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2024 PASSED BY
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BANGALORE OA IA NO.4 AND 5 IN
SERIAL APPLICATION NO.118/2013 (PLACED AS ANNEXURE - K
IN ID 117/2012 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:40584
WP No. 24903 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner workman is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru by which the applications filed by the petitioner workman under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 numbered as IA Nos.4 and 5 seeking to recall AW.1 and permit the petitioner workman to cross examine AW.1 and to permit him to file statement of objections have been rejected.
2. Admittedly domestic enquiry was initiated against five workmen, namely, Karibasappa Balamuri, Ramesh Gowda, K S Ramesh, Kemparaju and Honnappa the petitioner herein. After conclusion of the said enquiry they were dismissed from the service. The respondent management has filed applications under Section 33(2)(b) seeking direction of Tribunal which were registered as said Application Nos.113/2013, 114/2013, 116/2013, 117/2013 and 118/2013. Since the domestic enquiry pertains to five of the above said workmen, which was conducted involving common question of facts and law, a -3- NC: 2024:KHC:40584 WP No. 24903 of 2024 memo came to be filed by the respondent management seeking clubbing of the said serial applications that were filed by the management under Section 33(2)(b), which were numbered as Serial Application Nos.113/2013, 114/2013, 116/2013, 117/2013 and 118/2013 respectively. The said memo was taken on record and since there was a joint domestic enquiry conducted the Tribunal proceeded to club the said applications for common consideration. It appears thereafter affidavit in lieu of evidence filed by the respondent witness and cross examination was conducted on behalf of the workmen.
3. However, it appears there was a separate domestic enquiry apart from the aforesaid five common enquiries was initiated against the petitioner herein which was subject matter of serial application No.118/2013 before the Labour Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that it was due to the inadvertence on the part of the counsel clubbing of the said application along with the other five applications was not noticed under a bonafide belief that all the matters involved common questions of facts and law, when -4- NC: 2024:KHC:40584 WP No. 24903 of 2024 indeed a separate proceedings was initiated against the petitioner. As such, following two consequences occurred;
(a) Petitioner failed to file objection statement in respect of Serial Application No.118/2013; and (b) failed to cross examine the witness who had filed separate affidavit in lieu of evidence in support of the said proceedings.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also admit that it was a mistake on the part of the counsel which has resulted in prejudice and injustice to the workmen. Realizing the same the aforesaid applications came to be filed, though belatedly at the time when the mater was posted for orders.
6. In view of the inordinate delay which has caused, the Tribunal has rejected the application by the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the final orders are scheduled to be passed today. Hence the urgency.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand vehemently opposing the petition submits that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and on the other hand suppressed the material on record and is therefore not entitled for relief. He submits that the petitioner -5- NC: 2024:KHC:40584 WP No. 24903 of 2024 workman not being diligent in prosecuting the matter does not deserve any opportunity. Hence seeks for dismissal.
8. Heard. Perused the records.
9. Upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records this Court is of the considered view that reasons assigned for the mistake which has occurred in not filing the statement of objections and not crossing the witness appears to be acceptable inasmuch as there was an order which was passed clubbing all the serial applications for common and analogous hearing. It is quite natural, that when clubbing application is filed and allowed, impression is carried that a common evidence, common cross examination, common argument, would take care of the matter. What has occurred in this case is that apart from the five common proceedings, there was a separate proceeding which had been initiated against the petitioner who was also facing the said five common proceedings as above. The mistake which has occurred cannot be construed as a malafide or deliberate, however it was avoidable. For the mistake of counsel party shall not suffered. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:40584 WP No. 24903 of 2024
10. Since the final orders have not been passed yet, in the interest of justice this Court is of the considered view that an opportunity to be granted to the petitioner workman to file statement of objections in respect of the serial application No.118/2013 which pertains to his separate enquiry and also to be permitted to cross examine the management -witness, however, subject to the following;-
(a) The statement of objections to be filed and the cross examination of the witness shall be done on the next date of hearing without seeking any adjournment whatsoever and such date shall be 15.10.2024.
(b) If such objection is filed and witness is cross examined on the said date, the Tribunal shall take the same on record and into consideration and proceed further in accordance with law.
11. Petition is allowed accordingly. Order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, is set aside.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:40584 WP No. 24903 of 2024
12. It is made clear that if objections is not filed and the cross is not done on the next date of hearing, the Labour Court shall proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
SD/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2