Karnataka High Court
Bata India Limited vs Bata Employees Association on 13 August, 2012
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B Adi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF AUGUST 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI
WRIT PETITION NO.24085 OF 2012 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
BATA INDIA LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.6A,
S N BANERJEE ROAD
KOLKATTA AND A FACTORY AT
PLOT NO.474,475 & 476, 4TH PHASE
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA
BANGALORE-560058
REP BY ITS UNIT MANAGER
SRI KUHARAN MUKHOPADHYAY ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.CHETAN KUMAR H., ADV. FOR M/s.SUNDARASWAMY &
RAMDAS ASSTS., ADVS.)
AND:
1. BATA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
NO.813, NELE MAHESWARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD
DEVANNA COLONY, T DASARAHALLI
BANGALORE-560057
REP BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
2. LABOUR COMMISSIONER
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BANGALORE-560029 ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. K S SUBRAMANYA, ADV. FOR C/R1
SRI.RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATRI, HCGP FOR R2)
---
2
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature
of certiorari quashing the order dated 19.6.2012 of R2 as per
Ann-G and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day,
the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner has called in question the order dated 19.6.2012 in IAA-1/CR-34/2011-12 produced at Annexure-G passed by the 2nd respondent.
3. The 2nd respondent, by the impugned order, had directed prosecution of the petitioner - Management for non- compliance of the order dated 1.10.2008. This is an order passed on Sl. Application No.48/2003 in I.D.No.1/2000 (pending on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore).
4. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner - Management had filed Sl. applications for permission to confirm the order of dismissal of the employees under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said applications were rejected by order dated 3 1.10.2008 in Sl. Application No.48/2008 on the ground that the application under Section 33(2)(b) is not maintainable.
5. It is against the rejection of the application, the respondent - Union filed an application before the 2 nd respondent seeking permission to prosecute the Management for non-compliance of the said order and also for recovery.
6. There is no operative order which directs the petitioner - Management either for reinstatement or for payment of wages. If the permission sought for by the petitioner - Management for confirmation of the order of dismissal is rejected, the employees might be deemed to have been continued in service and may be entitled for wages. Even assuming that same is not paid, remedy lies to recover the same but it does not confer any right to prosecute the Management. The 2nd respondent, without even applying its mind as to whether there is any violation of the order or award passed by the Tribunal / Labour Court, only on the basis of rejection of the application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D.Act, has ordered for prosecution. Admittedly, there is no order or direction of any of the 4 competent Court or authority against the Management.
7. It is now submitted that the Union has filed an application under Section 33(c)(i) for recovery of the wages and also submitted that all the employees have been reinstated. If that is so, when the remedy is available for recovery and when the matter is pending on the said issue, the 2nd respondent erroneously has passed the impugned order. In my opinion, the impugned order is not sustainable in law.
Accordingly, the following order is passed. Petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 19.6.2012 in No.IAA-1/CR-34/2011-12 produced at Annexure-G passed by the 2nd respondent stands quashed. However, quashing of this impugned order does not come in the way of recovery of arrears of wages, if any in accordance with law.
8. Learned Government Pleader for the respondent No.2 is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE RV