Bangalore Jilla Powerloom And Handloom ... vs Mallappa on 30 October, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Bangalore Jilla Powerloom And Handloom ... vs Mallappa on 30 October, 2012

Bench: Subhash B Adi

                           1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

        DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012

                        BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI

           WRIT PETITION No.15107/2006 (L-TER)

BETWEEN :

BANGALORE JILLA POWERLOOM &
HANDLOOM WORKERS UNION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT,
NO 61-A, 2ND MAIN,
RAMACHANDRAPURA,
BANGALORE 560 021.                 ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. Y.S. SATISH CHANDRA, ADV FOR
SRI T. NARAYANASWAMY, ADV.)

AND :

1.    MALLAPPA,
      S/O. LATE LALI RAMAIAH,

2.    SMT. RAJAMMA,
      W/O. MALLAPPA,

3.    PRAKASH,
      S/O. MALLAPPA,

      PROPRIETORS,
      POWERLOOM FACTORY,
      NO.L-114-B, 13TH CROSS,
      LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA,
                                 2

      BANGALORE 560 021.               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.R. ANANTHA MURTHY &
 SMT B.N. SUDHA, ADVS. FOR R1 AND R2;
 PETITION STANDS ABATED AGIANST R-1)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE AWARD DT. 28.09.2005 PASSED IN REF.NO.100/1997
BY THE LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEX.G. AND
ALLOW THE REFERENCE AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

This writ petition is by the alleged Union, which has sought reference of dispute in Reference No.100/1997 against the termination of 14 employees working under the respondents.

2. Petitioner alleged that, the respondents are running power looms at Lakshminarayana Puram, Bangalore. It is a joint family concern. Petitioner - Union had made a complaint to the Inspector of Factories complaining poor work conditions prevailing in the respondent - Power loom establishment. On account of the complaint made by the Union, respondents terminated the services 3 of 14 employees. All the 14 employees were getting Rs.800/- wages per month, they are all the members of the petitioner - Union.

3. The said claim petition was opposed by the respondents interalia stating that, there are 24 power looms and each of the respondents individually owns 8 power looms and they are all separately registered. The Union is not a recognized Union, it cannot espouse the cause of the alleged workmen. The claim petition is also not signed by any of the alleged workmen. No evidence is produced to show that, there is a relationship of employer and employee between the alleged workmen and the respondents.

4. Before the Labour Court, the Vice President of the petitioner - Union got himself examined as WW-1. Except this, no other material was produced, in turn, the respondents produced the Certificate of Registration and the tax paid receipts to show that, 4 they are individually running the power looms and also alleged that, the cause espoused by the Union is not sustainable, as none of the workmen has signed the claim petition or examined before the Labour Court.

5. Except WW-1, alleged Vice President, there is no record to show that how this Union is formed, whether it is recognized, whether it can espouse the cause of the workmen, the claim petition was not signed by any of the workmen. No evidence is produced to show as to the relationship of the employer and employee between the alleged workmen and the respondents.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out from the evidence of the respondents that, the respondents have engaged these workmen and it is the first respondent alone is managing the entire affair. The evidence of respondent No.1 does not prove the relationship, does not prove that, the members of the petitioner - Union have worked for 240 days in a year under the respondents. 5 If the petitioner wants to establish that, the removal of the workmen was contrary to Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, they must necessarily establish that the workmen are members of the Union, it is a recognized Union and it has power to espouse the cause of the members. Nothing of such sort has been produced to prove before the Labour Court.

7. Even otherwise also, there is no document to prove any relationship between the members of the petitioner and the respondents. The Labour Court on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, has rejected the reference. Hence, I do not find any error in the award passed by the Labour Court.

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and same is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE KNM/DP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court