Karnataka High Court
Sri. V.S. Chandregowda vs Government Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2013
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR
Writ Petition Nos.8004-8076 of 2013 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. V.S. CHANDREGOWDA
S/O SHIVANNA
AGED 31 YEARS
2. SRI. NAGARAJU T.
S/O THAMMA
AGED 35 YEARS
3. SRI. RAMESH K
S/O LATE KASHAPPA
AGED 34 YEARS
4. SRI. PRAKASH B.G.
S/O GUNDAHANUMAIAH
AGED 32 YEARS
5. SRI. VEERABHADRAPPA M.V.
S/O VEERAPPA
AGED 33 YEARS
6. SRI. YASEEN
S/O SAHIFAN SAB
AGED 32 YEARS
7. SRI. JAYAKUMAR
S/O JAYASHEELAN
AGED 32 YEARS
8. SRI. SANJEEVAIAH
S/O LATE KADARAPPA
AGED 35 YEARS
2
9. SRI. VEERABHADRAIAH N.
S/O NAGARAJU
AGED 32 YEARS
10. SRI. V.M. NAGENDRASWAMY
S/O C. MAHADEVAIAH
AGED 37 YEARS
11. SRI. DEVARAJU P.
S/O B. PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGED 38 YEARS
12. SRI. NAGARAJU N.
S/O A. NARASIMHAMURTY
AGED 34 YEARS
13. SRI. B.M. GANGADHARAIAH
S/O MARISWAMAIAH
AGED 32 YEARS
14. SRI. SANTHOSH
S/O BASAVARAJU
AGED 30 YEARS
15. SRI. KUMAR
S/O V. RANGAPPA
AGED 31 YEARS
16. SRI. SRISHAILA HUGAR
S/O SHARANAPPA HUGAR
AGED 36 YEARS
17. SRI. BOREGOWDA A.B.
S/O PUTTASWAMAIAH
AGED 36 YEARS
18. SRI. BASAVARAJU
S/O BYRAIAH
AGED 33 YEARS
19. SRI. C. RAMESH
S/O K.C. CHIKKANNAPPA
AGED 34 YEARS
3
20. SRI. SIDDARAJU
S/O SIDDAPPA
AGED 34 YEARS
21. SRI. RAVIKUMAR
S/O LATE GURUVAIAH
AGED 38 YEARS
22. SRI. KRISHNAIAH
S/O LATE RAMSHETTY
AGED 36 YEARS
23. SRI. AYYANNA
S/O MADAIAH
AGED 32 YEARS
24. SRI. B. RAVIKUMAR
S/O BASAVARAJU
AGED 32 YEARS
25. SRI. NAGARAJU M.
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA
AGED 33 YEARS
26. SRI. SHIVARAJU L
S/O LINGAPPA
AGED 35 YEARS
27. SRI. VENKATESH R.
S/O RANGAIAH R.
AGED 34 YEARS
28. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S.
S/O SHIVANNA
AGED 31 YEARS
29. SRI. ARVINDGOUD PATIL
S/O BHEEMA GOUD PATIL
AGED 35 YEARS
30. SRI. VENKATESH K.T.
S/O THIMMARAYASHETTY K.T.
AGED 36 YEARS
4
31. SRI. LOKESH
S/O VENKATASWAMAIH
AGED 37 YEARS
32. SRI. RAMALINGAIAH
S/O SHIVALINGEGOWDA
AGED 38 YEARS
33. SRI. SHIVASHANKARAPPA
S/O LATE BASAVARAJU G.B.
AGED 39 YEARS
34. SRI. NANJEGOWDA
S/O LATE DASAPPA
AGED 35 YEARS
35. SRI. BALU R.
S/O SRI. RAMASHETTY
AGED 32 YEARS
36. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O NARASHIMAIAH
AGED 37 YEARS
37. SRI. P.B. SOMASHEKAR
S/O BYREGOWDA
AGED 32 YEARS
38. SRI. SHIVSHANKAR
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED 29 YEARS
39. SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH
S/O CHIKKAKUNTAIAH
AGED 35 YEARS
40. SRI. MANJUNATH S.R.
S/O RAVIKUMAR B.
AGED 31 YEARS
41. SRI. GOPALAIAH
S/O THIRUMALAIAH
AGED 36 YEARS
5
42. SRI. SIDDALINGESH
S/O SHIVAKUMAR
AGED 37 YEARS
43. SRI. KRISHNA
S/O NAGOJIRAO
AGED 37 YEARS
44. SRI. BASAVARAJU G.B.
S/O BASAPPA G.M.
AGED 31 YEARS
45. SRI. DEVARAJU H.
S/O LATE HANUMANTHRAYAPPA
AGED 33 YEARS
46. SRI. MUTTURAJAIAH
S/O CHIKKAMARAH
AGED 35 YEARS
47. SRI. UMESHA
S/O SIDDE GOWDA
AGED 34 YEARS
48. SRI. VIJAYA
S/O JAYAPRAKASH H V.
AGED 37 YEARS
49. SRI. CHANNAVEERAPPA
S/O SHANKARAPPA
AGED 31 YEARS
50. SRI. MAHADEVAIAH
S/O YEDURAIAH
AGED 36 YEARS
51. SRI. MAHESH K.P.
S/O PUTTAMADAIAH
AGED 32 YEARS
52. SRI. G. NAVEENKUMAR
S/O GANGAIAH
AGED 32 YEARS
6
53. SRI. BHADRAIH
S/O SHIVANNA
AGED 33 YEARS
54. SRI. VISHWANATHA B.V.
S/O VENKATESH
AGED 32 YEARS
55. SRI. BRAHMACHARI K
S/O S. KUMARACHARI
AGED 38 YEARS
56. SRI. SIDDIAH
S/O HANMANTHARAYAPPA
AGED 37 YEARS
57. SRI. PURUSHOTHAMA
S/O HANUMAIAH
AGED 32 YEARS
58. SRI. PRAKASH S.
S/O GUNDAHANUMAIAH
AGED 33 YEARS
59. SRI. SRINIVAS RAGNANVAR
S/O VITTAL
AGED 32 YEARS
60. SRI. RUDRESH
S/O LATE GALAPPA
AGED 36 YEARS
61. SRI. MADHU S.
S/O SIDDARAMCHARI
AGED 37 YEARS
62. SRI. RAJANNA
S/O ANNAIAH
AGED 35 YEARS
63. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR J.P.
S/O PUTTARAMAIAH
AGED 37 YEARS
7
64. SRI. PRADEEP
S/O GUNDURAO T
AGED 29 YEARS
65. SRI. RANGASWAMY
S/O CHIKKAHANUMAIAH
AGED 32 YEARS
66. SRI. RAMESH R.K.
S/O KARIKENCHAIAH
AGED 32 YEARS
67. SRI. PURUSHOTHAMMA
S/O NAGARAJA
AGED 34 YEARS
68. SRI. JHANARDHAN D.N.
S/O NEELAKANTA RAO
AGED 39 YEARS
69. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA C.
S/O CHIKKADODDAIAH
AGED 31 YEARS
70. SRI. SHARANAPPA C. PATIL
S/O CHANNA MALLAPPA
AGED 33 YEARS
71. SRI. NANJEGOWDA
S/O KADAPPA
AGED 36 YEARS
72. SRI. RANGARAJU R.
S/O RAMANNA
AGED 35 YEARS
73. SRI. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
S/O RANGE GOWDA
AGED 34 YEARS
ALL THE PETITIONERS CAN
BE SERVED THROUGH
8
SRI V S CHANDRE GOWDA
WORKING AS GROUP 'C',
TOYOTA BOSHOKU
AUTOMOTIVE (I) LTD.,
BIDADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
PIN - 560 129 ... PETITIONERS
[By Sri V S Naik, Adv.]
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
BY ITS SECRETARY
2. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
DIVISION NO.1,
KARNATAKA LABOUR
WELFARE OFFICE BUILDING,
2ND FLOOR, RAJANNA ROAD,
PEENYA 1ST STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 058
3. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
RAMANAGARA - 560 129
4. MANAGING DIRECTOR
TOYOTA BOSHOKU
AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT. LTD.
NO.41, BHIMENAHALLI,
M.N HALLI POST, BIDADI,
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT
PIN - 560 129
5. TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE
INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION,
A REGISTERED TRADE UNION,
NO.41, BHIMENAHALLI,
M.N. HALLI POST, BIDADI,
9
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT
PIN - 560 129
BY ITS SECRETARY ... RESPONDENTS
[By Sri Raghavendra G Gayatri, AGA for R1 to R3;
M/s. B C Prabhakar & C K Subrahmanya, Adv. for R4;
Sri T S Anantharam, Adv. for R5]
THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
ENTIRE RECORDS FROM R2 PERTAINING TO ANNEXURE - L AND
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 12.12.2012 ISSUED BY R2
THE ORIGINAL COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED & MARKED AS
ANNEXURE - L SINCE THE SAME IS ARBITRARY & TOTALLY
CONTRARY TO THE SCHEME OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT,
1947 AND ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Writ petitioners are all permanent employees of the fourth respondent - company and also claim to be Members of the fifth respondent - Union recognized by the fourth respondent - Management.
2. It is pleaded that the Union of which the petitioners are members have been entering into settlement with the 10 Management on their charter of demands including revision of wages etc., and after negotiation settlement is being arrived at between the Union and the Management and all employees are given the benefit of such settlement.
3. Writ petitioners also claim that there are several groups of workmen so categorized by the Management as A, B, C, D, E, F, G & H as per the nature of service and length of service rendered by the workmen.
4. Writ petitioners though accepted that the Union has arrived at a wage settlement with the Management for the year 2013 i.e., on 19.03.2013 and also do not dispute that they have taken the benefit as is now submitted by Sri. V S Naik, learned counsel for petitioners, nevertheless, had approached this court earlier, inter alia, contending that the petitioners belonged to C, D & H category of workmen; that even under the earlier settlement etc., there is a discrimination vis-à-vis this group of employees in C, D, & H group of workmen in the matter of wages and revision of 11 wages vis-à-vis other category of workmen in the other groups, A, B, E, F & G.
5. This dispute had gone before the Conciliatory Officer and was pending before the Conciliatory Officer, particularly, as to the differential treatment meted out to the petitioners group of employees vis-à-vis other group of employees. The matter was under conciliation before the Conciliatory Officer and the Conciliatory Officer having issued an endorsement dated 12.12.2012 [copy at Annexure-L] indicating that the request of the writ petitioners was to resolve the differential treatment to the class of employees as noted above, but both groups being represented by the very Union which is negotiating with the Management for a settlement, the dispute raised by the petitioners' group is more internal matter amongst the workers and therefore was of the opinion that it can be resolved mutually or by raising dispute before the 12 appropriate forum and issued an endorsement to this effect.
6. It is aggrieved by this endorsement the present writ petitions.
7. Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. V S Naik, learned counsel has raised various legal contentions to impugn the legality and validity of endorsement at Annexure-L.
8. It is submitted that it is well settled law that the Conciliatory Officer has only duty to conciliate the matter and can neither refer the dispute by himself to a court nor can reject the existence of dispute or adjudicate over the same; that if the conciliation does not come through, it is for him to report to appropriate Government to take a decision to refer the dispute for adjudication to the competent Tribunal or not and if this course of action has not gone through and there is failure on the part of the 13 duty of the Conciliatory Officer and therefore it deserves to be quashed and other legal contentions are also raised.
9. Notice had been issued to the respondents. Fourth Respondent - Management and is represented by M/s. B C Prabhakar & C K Subrahmanya, Advocates, and fifth respondent - Union is represented by Sri. T.S. Anantharam, learned counsel, both of whom have filed statement of objections.
10. The stand of the respondents basically is that a dispute which had been raised on behalf of the present writ petitioners does not survive in the wake of the subsequent settlement as dispute essentially related to revision of wages and the wage entitlement of employees; that the dispute which had been raised by the writ petitioners being part of the wage entitlement subsequent to the settlement, the dispute does not survive as settlement takes care of the grievance and moreover the petitioners also having taken the benefit of the settlement 14 and accepted the settlement, cannot keep alive the so called earlier dispute, whether it was valid or otherwise, prior to the date of entering into settlement which settlement is not disputed and therefore writ petitions do not survive at this stage.
11. It is pointed out by Sri. C K Subrahmanya, learned counsel for fourth respondent - Management that the so called dispute raised by writ petitioners is also now part of the settlement that the Union has entered into and a section of workers cannot turn round for challenging the settlement and each Member of the Union including the petitioners had given consent for the agreement to enter into settlement and in terms of the agreement and settlement, they have all been given the benefit and therefore writ petitioners cannot continue the so called earlier dispute; that if at all it can be challenged if they are questioning the very settlement on any ground of 15 misrepresentation, fraud or such aspects alleged against the Management.
12. Mr. V S Naik, learned counsel for petitioners while does not dispute that the petitioners have received the benefit under the settlement, nevertheless, contends that the writ petitioners on the very day had given a letter of protest and therefore reserved their right to pursue the matter; that the dispute which had been raised was not exactly for revision of wages but to remove the wage gap disparity that existed between certain groups of employees.
13. Mr. V S Naik, learned counsel for petitioners has also drawn attention of the court to the provisions of section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to point out the duties of the Conciliatory Officer and the manner of the Conciliatory Officer to go about while attempting conciliation and though no doubt settlement has been arrived subsequent to raising of the dispute, the 16 settlement could still leave a gap, in the sense, wage gap disparity has not been addressed to in the settlement and could become an issue in future and therefore the matter can be raised as dispute before the Labour Officer, but at any rate the Conciliatory Officer giving an endorsement by himself was not within his competence etc.
14. After examining the rival contentions and the petition pleadings and developments that have taken place, I am not impressed to interfere in these writ petitions for the following reasons.
15. The object of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short 'the Act'] is to ensure industrial peace and for resolution of the dispute between the Management and the workmen in a satisfactory manner and for such purpose the Conciliatory Officer and other machinery has been set up including the courts.
17
16. It is the object of the Act that there should be mutual understanding between the Management and the workmen and if they can themselves bring about an agreement and settlement that is the best thing to happen. It is only when there is failure to arrive at an amicable terms of employment and the conditions relating to wages and other benefits to the employees, the matter becomes a dispute and if not resolved, it goes through the process of conciliation and then report to the appropriate Government.
17. If a matter can be resolved by the Management and the workmen, that is the best thing and that should not be disturbed even assuming that there are some persons who may not be very satisfied with the settlement. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are also represented by the Union which has entered into a settlement and benefit is also extended. While it may be a fact also that the group of employees of which the 18 petitioners are Members had grievance earlier and that had been made subject matter of the dispute and was being conciliated before the Conciliatory Officer, but when once subsequent settlement which is not in dispute has been arrived at by the very Union and the Management, the earlier dispute obviously is to be presumed as having been taken care of and not existing any more.
18. If the petitioners have got benefit of the settlement and assuming that they are protesting against the same and want to agitate their grievance by pursuing the dispute which had been raised earlier, I am of the view that a dispute of the nature which had been raised earlier would not be a apprehended dispute in the wake of subsequent development. The dispute raised earlier does not survive and it cannot be termed as an apprehended dispute even before a settlement is arrived at. It is only after the arrival of the settlement, if there is a dispute that 19 has come into existence whether it is actually raised or apprehended can be subject matter for conciliation.
19. Be that as it may, it is not necessary for this court to go into all these questions and also the question as to whether the Conciliatory Officer has acted within the powers and duties or otherwise. The matter is not further examined only for the reason that there is now subsequent settlement between the fourth respondent - Management and the fifth respondent - Union of which petitioners are without dispute Members.
20. As pointed out by learned counsel for respondents, unless the entire settlement is questioned, it cannot be questioned in part at this point of time irrespective of whether the petitioners have accepted the benefits under the settlement under protest or otherwise as acceptance under protest by a section or group of workers who are part of the recognized Union and are all Members of the 20 very Union in itself cannot in any way detract from the validity and the binding nature of settlement.
21. Be that as it may, in view of the developments, irrespective of the legal and jurisdictional issues raised on behalf of the petitioners, I am of the view that it is not necessary to go into such questions in these writ petitions, particularly, for examining the powers and duties of the Conciliatory Officer and without prejudice to further rights and remedies and also steps to be taken by other authorities, these writ petitions are declined as not warranting interference at this stage in view of the subsequent development, particularly, the subsequent comprehensive settlement that has been entered into between the fifth respondent - Union and the fourth respondent - Management and that the petitioners themselves being Members of the fifth respondent - Union. It is not necessary that this court has to pass any order on merits of the contentions raised in these writ petitions, 21 but petitions are dismissed without going into the merits of the contentions on the nature of power and duties of a Conciliatory Officer.
22. It is open to the parties to raise dispute as and when arises and it is for the Conciliatory Officer to examine that as and when they are brought before him.
23. Without prejudice, these writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AN/-