Karnataka High Court
Workmen Of Mangalore Chemicals & ... vs Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd ... on 31 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4353
WP No. 12121 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 12121 OF 2008 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
WORKMEN OF MANGALORE CHEMICALS &
FERTILIZERS LIMITED,
REP BY THE MCF WORKERS' UNION (REGD.),
REP BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT KSRM BUILDING,
LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD,
MANGALORE,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT K. RASHMI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M SUBRAMANYA BHAT .,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: HIGH
MANGALORE CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LIMITED,
COURT OF REP BY THE SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT (WORKS)
KARNATAKA
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
CRESCENT ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR.,ADVOCATE FOR
SRI S N MURTHY ASSTS., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE ENTIRE RECORDS OF THE CASE IN REFERENCE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4353
WP No. 12121 of 2008
NO.16/2001, ON THE FILE OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
MYSORE AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-workman of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited represented by MCF workers' union assails the order dated 20.02.2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore in Reference No.16/2001, whereby, the reference filed by the petitioner-union under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'ID Act' for short), was rejected by the Industrial Tribunal.
2. The petitioner-union sought for reference of dispute in terms of the Government order dated 23.04.2001 in respect of the following issues.
(i) Are the MCF workers union justified in placing the following demands as listed in Annexure-1 vide their letter dated 18.01.2001 against the management of MCF limited.
(ii) If not, to what relief the workers are entitled to?-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:4353 WP No. 12121 of 2008
2. Are the Management of MCF Limited, Mangalore justified in demanding from the workman.
(i) That the workers should agreed rationalization and manning norms as per the recommendations enclosed in Annexure-2.
(ii) That the workers should participate in training programme chalked out by the management without demanding overtime allowance.
(iii) If not, to what relief the Management is entitled?
3. (i) Are the workmen represented by MCF Workers Union justified in going on strike w.e.f. 19.03.2001?
(ii) If not, to what relief the workman are entitled?
3. All these issues were referred to the Industrial Tribunal. It is not in dispute that, during the pendency of the reference, a settlement was arrived on 11.09.2002 between the Management and the Union excluding the union representing the workman who have raised this dispute. In terms of the said settlement certain service benefits were extended to the employees who had signed the settlement. The union raised a plea that similarly placed employees, who have signed the settlement have been paid better service benefits and the employees, who -4- NC: 2024:KHC:4353 WP No. 12121 of 2008 have sought to refer for reference of their disputes are not paid the same, only on the ground that, they have not signed the settlement. The Labour Court though considered all the said aspects, as clearly stated by MW-1 and MW-2, the witness on the part of the management, arrived at the conclusion that the management has been declared as a sick industry facing proceedings before BIFR under the provisions of the S.I.C Act and the company is unable to implement the scheme of revival as directed by BIFR and held that the workman is not entitled for the demands as mentioned in the said Annexure-1. The Labour Court reasoning to deny the relief claimed by the petitioner is unwarranted and unsustainable.
4. I.A. No. 2/2015 is filed for amendment to consider the claim of the petitioners of those similarly placed workman, who are the Mangala workers and the settlement that has been arrived between the other union excluding the present union representing the workman, during the pendency of the dispute.
5. In the said circumstances without adverting to the merits and demerits of the claim statement made by the workman, the matter needs to be remitted back to the Labour Court for fresh consideration including the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:4353 WP No. 12121 of 2008 consideration of IA No.2/2015 for amendment, which has been sought by the petitioner in the present petition. The Labour Court to bear in mind the petitioners claim is of the demand made during the consideration of the claim statement, which was pending before the Labour Court. In light of the settlement having been entered between management and other trade union, Labour Court should take into consideration all these aspects and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly this Court pass the following;
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned order dated 20.02.2008 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Parties are directed to be present before the Industrial Tribunal on 15.02.2024.
(iii) The industrial Tribunal to consider the claim of the petitioner with that of the similarly placed settlement entered into by the management and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
-6-NC: 2024:KHC:4353 WP No. 12121 of 2008
(iv)The Industrial Tribunal shall dispose of the claim petition as expeditiously as possible, within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
All contentions are kept open to be urged before the Tribunal including the grounds urged in IA No.2/2015.
In light of the disposal of the writ petition, pending I.A.s' if any, would not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE RAK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18