M/S Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd vs Assistant Labour Commissioner on 4 February, 2011

[Cites 7, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd vs Assistant Labour Commissioner on 4 February, 2011

1 WA 3893,/2005
I CT;/'»=V.
W'.A.3928!S30{}5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, ISANGALORPZ 

DATED1}ﬁs1wH£04"+DAYcHrFEBRUARY.201p»f; g

PRESENT

'Hﬂ§HONBLEﬁM{JLS.KHEHARgHﬂEFJESﬁ§E  W

AN D

THEHONBMEMR¢l$ﬂCEASA%EHHMimE._J

xVRrrAPPEALp«13a$3tni200S'«  V?
v,C "W_ _\;V_  _A_
wRnv&wEALN0£@;§Q§gg$gggEm

BEFNEEN .v  ~~->

M,/S. Bharat Fr1';tj? W i3.,t1d..: ~  
Machine T0018 P/Iar1_1'1f'a¥CI'tu.'1'E:1*s;ff--  

Peenya, Off: TLrmkt1"bR.Qad,  

Bangalore 560022. .  ' 

Rep. by its P1;€Sid<731'1"[,"w. A _  '

31 C30, MT. S.N';»}VIi.ShI'3,.    APPELLANT

{COMMON IN BOTH T'f'IE CASES}

H,1£f3Y:A§S1'i_,vi§.P{§.s§i:11.fi;«--.Sr.A<iv. for M / A.Y.N. Gupia 81 J. Aravind

Babu*.Advs§}-v.,_  *

  V ASsisi'.a11t Labour Commissioner,

. 'Di.t;'isi€3I1 N0. 1 1,

 §{e11'mi}~;.a. Bhavan.

 'Be1r1n.erg.11ai,1.a R(>ad..
'E3a'1"1gg;ai<)r€ 5630 029'



2 \m 3893,/2e05
C xw.
w.A.392e/22905

3. M/ s. Bhasrai Fritz, Werner K.armﬂ<::;1 Sangha.
23;'2, 1*" Main. Road, Sesha<i.ripm'am,
Bamgamre 560 020
Rep. by 1155 Cseneyal Sem"ei,a;'y. REZSPONEJENTS

{COMMON IN BO'I'I}"i THIEZ CA$E'.__S]

{By E3ri.I3.\feer21ppa, AGA, for R1. Sri. KS. SL1br2zhn1_2';'tiy'ef  A' 

C/R2, Adv.)

These Writ Appeais are fiied u/ of   ? 
Court Act praying to set aside the e:"c{e.r"passed _i_r';"the 'Wi*L€: "

Peﬁition N0s.4»2720/2001 <3; 427:9)./m..V_da1e'e 21v._1ji' 
These Writ. Appe:a1é"<--'ef1\7iI'i§§ §geei1V._'11ear_d and reserved
e(:ami'r1g on for prV0'neu11eVe§I"1e_nt.."_Vof .j11dgfnef,i, this day,

PACHHAPURE  ':§e1§f\};:t3:red< ﬁ'.i*;:e_ i'0i§Q\2eing:

 QNISGMENT

' , 'The.v_;ippe11ae_m. herein is a Company registered under

t:he"§§1*'0:wis,Vie'ii.es;  f;he Companies Ami, 1956. it carries the

 'businese ef manu.fae1:Lare and sales of Machine T 0013 etC.,
  if  employed several eznpleyees/workmen for its
 ..._"bus§iness. The workn1e'ra whe have been employed in the

 .  fCem§321r'ay have ferm.eci 2:: U;;1ie11 whieIr1  Resper1deI1€: N02



3 WA :3s393,x2oo:3
c:/w.
W.A.:E928,f20£35

herein. The Respondent No.2. Union by its i.e,ii:er dat.eeI_ 04*

04-2000 reqL1esi:ed the appeI1a:1t, to I'(i'COgI1i'Sf:3::"~,_ﬁ\{€ '-7 w<)1'k:.o1en v'1z., .1) K.A..Gar1g§e1o11a, 2] S.Shivam121, 4} 'F.AswathI1are1yan and 5_).~'--?«'£_e?g1£e1'ppe1A 25 'Protected. Workmen' for the year (€).1¢AO;'f";ﬁ42O::')Q 80wO4--2001} under the p1'()ViSi:OI1S of__Se(_:iio1"1 oI74ti1e"-- Inclustriai Disputes Act, 1947',-.. Act') readwith Rule of "£od11effrio.} Vﬁisputes [Karr1a1'.aka) Rules, 1Q'i37' _(1'iereir.1éift e1f '~called as 'the Kamataka Rules'.

2. 'the Union was not considered within a 1"e'asou,ab'1e the Respondent: No.2 Union ..- th_i_:f~3vbeha}I' before Respondemf No.1 on

-ffihe appellant raised the objections for 'of'j__§{le..Ga11g21r311e1 and Shivazona as 'Protected §?V_orkn;;ge§1i'«;Sih,f41oc they were said to have been involved in offelmes and the State had filed complaints them in the iflriminai Couxiss. In ihesse "'*"""_.7§ "?:e~»~<:_.sw~' ,u»-- E I'; \ »»ae--"""w Lu"! [}1(3I'€iH€1ff,€1'- ,_(:a_E1ed"V as S 'the V ow f E E, 4 vex 3893/2005 :1: /w.

w.A.392s,r:aoo5 e1':reumst2111c:es, the Respozldent: No. I herein by order dated 04-O"7«~20{)O refused to accord the stiatus of 'Prc«teei:.ed afore-said two W01'_kmen' to the V.-'Ol'kfI1€I]. Vi?I., K.A,Gangam1a and S.S.hivam1a for the year Thereafter, on O5mO7~2000 the a1ppe113.11t__--':.di$f1§.i'§sse:L§----.jA ~ K.A.Gang;aIma from the services fQ:'....i.:h_e n:--_i§see'3°i€i't1ef V to have been committed by him, aﬁer eforflestie conducted by the Enquiry Offiee'1'-...§1ndAﬂied' ° V under Section 83 (2) (h). of {:Ij3.e.--xAe_i"'f;)r e}§p1"oVai§ of the action taken before the LE'1&iJh0'£i_F"\r_:(:i'1,§:ff, hw:I1ehre.Vthe induségrial dispute 11:5 1'ee<3gr1it.i0n of the aforesaid workmen i.e., "K.A'.G31=1gaiir1_e{'.:1hd Shivanna was decided. V. R.eeeende31t. No.1 by his order impugned 11']"'{h€3.';xff1i-.}§€fi'ti:i§I}"'I'€fL1S€C1 to reeogI1ise them as 'Protected Wo1"krhen'..__"Ag;.e}f'iew'ed by the order passed by Respondent i¢".','fJe'§ the.' Union appma(:hed this Ceurt. in 4'_:W;13._'N'<):§.42719/2001 and 42720/2001. The: Respondent":

--.'_1\f<>';2:h Ma1.nz:gc%n2er1i. fiied the ebjec:i:i<in1s ;'>ut:i'.i:f1g;§ femih. the 4<:""'W. '...m...mar;:-'*"""

Z?" 1-' {ﬁ_;M.,., 9-9 I' ., M =~ W?"

5 WA :3s93 x2905 C/W. W.A.£3928/2{}O5 g1"i{'3V-"E1I1(?€S iihai. the said two workmen were Em-*0IfJe§i in COI1'l1.'13iSSi()I1 of criminal 0.ﬁ'e.n(:es and that Labour Ccymmissioner was justified in ;)21ssir}§;:' refusing re.c.0gnit1'011 ef the said i\VL)'A'}jg--1*scﬂ);"i&s Wo;:kH1er1' and as the iearnegi writ }3et.ition 0f the U:1ir)1ﬁ, the appellant Company has ehéillehging the order passed by the 1ea1'nev§i-"Sihg;e:'V.J

4. We haveA'hVeard~"i:h'e.:IAea1';j:e_d ::m;;::.se1 for both the pa'ri;ies.

5,.' -. 1;f.:g21i'1"1ed"'e::);L'13:1:=;eE for the appeiiané: wouid e'd1"1.tei'1<§i ordeihupasseci by the first "respondent No.1 herein by.4:'1?ebi'L1.Si..n"g the recogrntiorl of the af01*esa.id two persrjns a__;~7} "there were criminal cases agaixlsf, them at the ""v."'iiLﬁ;e 'whet: the names were communictated by the Union to _' :he.'V"a;5pe]I21nt' Mar121g_;emer1i. fer' iiheir rec:og§t3ii:1oI1 as .._ "P1'~c)i:e<:t.ec1 \F\:'0rkmen', \A«'e'2:~;: juet. and pmpeln Therefore, he " 43 " E ,=.«' E fa WA 3893/':20e5 C/W. W.A.3928/2005 colatencis that the orcier passed by the ieamed Siiigie 8 Judge setting aside the erders of the Assista:1"ij'.»f;ab*0t1r Cernmissioizer is erroneous.

6. Now, so far as the vI1t1mVber'"~oi" wotfkrfiert. i;oG:.)eV recognised as 'Prot:eei.ed the number of employees the Union would be at iiberisxt' of worknfien subject to a minviI:i«i4_f11 0235 the provisions of Section 33': idoubt true that the Respond:eiitV names of 5 persons i1'1CI11(Z1iI'1gVV'A'1'ff1VﬁE3" and Shivanna and as there were e,fr*ir:"iir"1:eii cases against. the aforesaid two ;je'rsVof:s. ;""'iRespo11dent No.1 refused to recognize the afo;;;es_3.i1a--. as 'Protected Workmerl' while he _grz«3.nt.ed the status of workmen so fa: as the remetining 3 7v.'4'e_Iinplr)yees: Now. in this context, it is necessary to Consider _t._he._ p1evisioI1s of Rule 62 (1.) to {4} of KE-1I'I1.':1tE1ka Rules

-«..V'{*Ji'1:i;eh preseﬁbe iiiie procedure so faz' as the :"eeog':1iti.<)2'1 of E .

Mme /Z" 8 (3 .2' 5"/. twfwr 5 $59» 7 WA 3893 x' 2005 C3 ,1 W. V'£?..i§.l3¥328 ,2' 2005 workmen is conc:er11ed. The said Rule is ext._1.~a_c:ted hereunder:

"E32. (1) Prot.e(:i:ed Worlmlen: {I} ' registered t.re.de union e0r111ec"[,ed \,vit.h,4'::a1I1..leT'F"

indusiirial estiablishmerlt, to _w,l1ig:h am} applies shall c0m11:1L1niCat:e {Q before the 30"' April every ye4ar,:"t:he 11ei11es A' and addresses of such S union who are (3IIA1_§)]vv(V:):),»7€(il'--._ A ill establishment and the of the t.1m'or1, should be workmen', .eh_é§_11gel ﬁn '."l::as2(:_i'1mz:ffz'1ll)er1cy of any such abve'--'lceffnzjnunieated to th _ l __ union within fi {teen days ' of su(:h.V.§:l1-5-11} H " "

[{2} '"I'lie"'e1:r1_pl.oyez* shall, subject to S33, A 'v.su'.3_%s.l_ zfeeognise such workmen to be for the pL1r'poses of subw A (3),olf said Sectiora and commLLni.ca£e to the plrgiorz in Lvrmng. within"/:i/'i'eer1 days of the A 'reueeilﬁt of the names and addresses under "sL:ilb--rule (.1), the list w0rl<;men rec:()g11ise:d as 1 proi'.ec'z:ed workmeli, ll"

3» 5:' Q' 1""?

_,.m»-*"'") if at 8 \-VA 38S}3/ 2005 C /W. \«'v'.A.3928/2005 {3} Provided that, Where there is than one registered trade union in E2st.ab1is'hme11t, the maximtzm m1mber__ei1.;11fE:.A_:'~ L. be so distributied by the emp10§'et'«:1pi.t)11g ' A unlens that the numbers protected workmen in inelix,{id't1ej-etii'1ie11:s'V:}f5eAe.3iv roughly the same [)1"()})Oi'tV£"VitC3.t'1M'1'..(') as the men1bersh'ip_ fig'ué*e$»vt.:efVV'V"the -u'n'iousA. The employer shat? in writing to the Preisicivexit of the Unieﬁ i_5retiee'teei: workmen aliotteet4t0_:.ii:J'V. ' ' t a V _ that where the Jlurnber "of tmferkmezl allotted to a txrxion ua11:%er"this"'s1.tb~r1,1ie, falls short of the V-¢e,.riumbev1j of eff1"Ce1~s of the union seeking ' --p1fet4eetv1et1',---_t11e union shall be entitled to t"=seleet_"_~--.1:h;e" officers to be recognised as "*pre."_te'L;t:e'€:i W°0l"k.'IT1(~)f1. Stleh seieetion shall be matje by the union and c:()mmuniea.t.ed to the "'{~:_mp10yer within five days of the rexzeipti of t the empioyefs Ietter.

9 'NA 3893/2005 (3/"W. W'.A.3928/2095 {:1} When 21 disggute arise:~; between an employer and any regisiiered 'i'1'ade Union. in any Inatt.er Connected with the re<tog;1ii;ier';"'t)'f'-.9 -. 'protected workmen' under this L. dispute shah be referred toI"ﬁne"'eone£1ietion_ ' A Ofﬁcer eoneerneci, whose d:e::is}i:or1Tv shail be final." (The underline i.s§'o'ti1'S 2

7. As per subwrule (1) Ijniofn has to send the names of 5 Ap;~-11 every year and when such names has 21 duty to consider the'-..reejo_g»niti:on.of spiciia, Worknaen as 'Protected Workmerl' for _s1.1io--Section 3 of Section 38 and eomrf;1,_1r:ieat,ee_'to:.' i:hV_e-ijtaion in writing VVH.hi'I1 15 days of the greveeipt .of.tjh_e"na1rnes and addreseees under sub--ruie (1), liet, of workmen recognised as 'Protected W'orl{mTe1";'f."--«._WiAth.-i" reference to sub rule (2), it is the V _eonte:r1tie_n' ~r>r"' the learned Counsel for the :'esspon.der1ts 1fhat,.,_whe£; there is a duty east upon the employer to _ -_<::om?11tiI1ie21{:e to the Union the rmmes of the recognised. workmen within 15 days; of the reee.ip't of the I1»E3.13}€:':3, the Q 3 I" "N z/ _4,:ﬂ_,,..4»i_,,«...., M 5 3 ' w:/,,,«--«-'"""W § ; -

El WA 3893 x2005 C/W. \¥'.A.3928/2{}():'f> fa.i.£ure on the part of the empioyer impliedly leads to the 1.0 a(:eept:;mee of the ree0g,;:1.ition of the names 'Protected Workmen'. According to the Iea11~11ecE-.'_ 'i::<>u1j;Ss§.3,e» is at deeming provision and the \5'o"1'(:i".<3ha1}' _.11eVri;3g"i5Veef3; used under sub rule (2), it is .iVmpe1:a_t_:i{?'eV_A.on part employer to communicate the"1r.eeognit.ionVofot'heV":wo'fkmen as 'Protected Workmenf," %_.iiing%,i,t'i%i.*I*1i:(j11 'i"'a1_is deemed that the recognition is granted to t.ho.S'e'\a}ho§§e.n_';1arn.e$ have been Sent by the Umjo'r1';., }'--

8. On thits_.,a_s}'§eei;_of._th.e mat.te.1*, the learned counsei relied upon the Dvi.Visi<3n""Be'12<§h decision of the High Court of Qzzjarattttt ﬁfeporteri in 1978 (I1) LLJ 432 (R.Béi1as£{breLm_ani21m and others VS. Carborandum wherein it has been heid by the _ High"'««..C0t:'rt~.et Gujalxat. that once the Union makes its ot"'*is3rot'eeet.ed Workmen' and c:om1'm,1r1iCateS it to the f%Ae._¢m'p1t;ye:~ by the due date, Rule 66 of Bombay Rules estate ~ "r:'1:e}§11<:121'i:(>3":¢ v:>b1igatieI1 that the oz-3:mp1oyr:3r shalt reeog11i2:e the \ R t .

,»»<e" »»»»»» "29? me 'V M _4.c:"

3!} _,.;:.o f 2' 3?' 1 E WA 3893 12005 C/W. w.A.392s!:zooe wmlszmen as 'Protected. Wor}<;1"r1e1'1' sL1bjec:i: to the si'21'tu_t.ory pmvision made in Section 33(4) and in the nmndatiory language of Rule 66(2) of Bombay-%_;'_Ri£}é:$~l.::

employer can refuse to recognise the prote.ete'c1..Wo'1*l;n1e1"i« only if he can bring' the ease Within gro'uhdVs*; provided in Section 33 {4} of the Ad}. Ifothe2s.a1id:--'c:ase';~..Allie list was sent by the Unior1;' which"A.eontai:::eo_: the minimum. number of five persons as .__reAq:L1i1*e.;i 'under Clause 33(4) of the Act emcl Gourt held foal. there was no valid or bo11afid'e~«.g§"ou;jd ;j_WhicI1.t:'l1le» employer could have tailierzm. the employer had no option bot go send_.lihe and the failure on the part of the rminz/1ge11ie11is would not lead to non re<::og11'itior1. o"f~1F§L1le of Bombay Rules, the High Court helci«.l'fth1ai-.v evxe11.T"{:l~1'e a.bsen.ee of any express recognition, it V _ has to be_']f1.e.r::essar'i1y presumed and the persons would be telérggnised as 'Prot.e(:te<:l Workmen' from the date of the _'h~_;zp_t3lij<:z1t:ioIa. As the Rules referreci in the afoxresaid

-«..lk:'ie'e.isio:1 are simi.la:1f to the K.211"nz3taka Roles, he submits Aa£'"'"' , V '.#'i- E"

--«»'A--"'§ A?

E '_£...»~m~w«w~w»"">"""" ,-

l E 9' '§M_w,,,...---AI'-:s $31' 12 xx.-=A 38€~}3;'2()G5 C /w.

\»*.-'_.;x.3€a2z3f:2,{}o5 that the employer having; not commi.1nicai:eci the names of five workmen Semi for re.cognit_i.on, ii: is deemed i.o--'"3r._1ave been recogiiised and that i'e(:0g11ii:i()3'1 relates back=t:o--._ih_e date of their application fiied. So aleo, the _ upon an Uff}.I'€p0I'1'.€3d judgment of iii W.P.1-420/I995 dated 13"' July observed as under:

"Since the oniyv9iv0 1:1jectio riw 1 empioyer could raise is 'iziofifineei to' i 33 (3) readwith ,.RuIe Vieéim "and objection, as a niat.ier_AOAfL exist ingihis been Committed.

by «.19 1*evs'p.on_éie1fii; proceeding to decide the claim made U_iide~i*Ru1e 62(4)."

VSO Vfelyiiiigv upon the decisions, it is the g(1OIiij§?i11§iQIi-$)f learned counsel for Resporicient No.2 that'--.whe1:{"_'»-.the" Union sent the five namee, it was 'Vmandat.o'i"y on the part of the employer to recognize the ..§5aidii'~perso13_$ as 'P'roi.e(:t}ed Wo1'kme:1} as the:re is no of the pr()vis,:i<ms of"Sec:i:ioi1 83 (3) sand (4) of the Act 1995, 7;whe1f'eir_iV is:

1 3 W.e'~\ :32-39:3/2=3o5 <2 jw.

W.A.:5$}:28,/20{};'3 which z1(::::0rdi1"1g to him is; the mlly objection that the employer could raise. _ » .4

10. New advert,ing to the C.0ntent:i0n of Counsel for the appellant, it is re1e\jan1', Case, where a dispute arises betxveezfz ficiaﬁei Trade Union, in any n1e1tte1" c:<:§n r}ee1ieVe1'x-x}V:ith L' of a 'Protected Workmen'. to be referred to the ConciV1i'éif;£'on and his decision thereon' jsilall Soffar as«.:tE1e word 'dispute' mentioned Ru-]ew62 is concerned; there is no definifioezfzé'proveide-ﬁ=1n?i<ie1* 'the Rules about the nature of the €iiF§p"L1'_t€. "ffaerebji, it is a matter 0:": iI'1ieerpreina'u'0n of '(he to consider the scope of dispute that is to be.'_dec;de}j*'e«§;4yihea C0n<:.ii1'ating Officer. '1. law is made to prcrtect. the good and to .«.'_"})eunish bad. 80, if the tiispute referred in the Rule is V' "3;-«:V'>_<_">P<._e(':i; imio in this <:0nte;<:t., the C():11ei1iat:ing C)f'ficer has .2 .

:' wM_M,W»« 33 1 4 WA 3893 / 2095 C/W. W.A.:3928/2005 taken a just, decision in 3'ef11sin_g to reeogniee the names of the aforesaid two persons on the ground that invoived in erin1in_a1. cases. The learned (?()E1'I#§§€} H appellant, has placed. reiiance on the Court of Madras reported in (Parthasarathy N. vs. Blue 'V wherein, the Division Court took into consideration contained in the Rules of Sin the case of P.H.Ka1ya11i.€' Ceiotgtfjo (Supra), wherein it was opioed es" H _ 21 paricioular Workﬁafi pAt:osteoLt.ec1 workman or not for .. pur;5()€=e__ of Section 33, Industrial '' is a question of fact., and the oif _j..the Labour CouI*'£: on such a 'q«L1eet.1ot_;..'xv111 go-neraﬂy be accepted by the Court in appeai from the :;1wa1."d of "V . ,__i:he*i,:abx:>ur Court; as oc3I1c:I1,1.ssiVe,"' .,. «a./3 --' ﬂ_:§,.r '~s_./ V) su§!"'y("":"Vﬂ V s "M 3 .5 M-=~«~'" 2 .1.

U /rm 3 5 \:~vA 35393 /2805 C/'N. 'KZKI/XJ3E§(2lé%;L?J00% Ftirfhermore, it also heid as under:

"34. Whiie eonsicierizig the usage of the word .' "deemed" in the Central Sales Tax Act, Supreme Court. in Consolidated Lieti; Coffee Board, Bangalore AIR 198i?

[1980] 3 sec 358 Paragraph ii? obseéifvedeizihatzi .:e - "

"The word "deemed" 1-S_ :L1$€d £1 g_re2ii;V V- deal in modern 1egis1aiior_1.__L:'m:_ i:1§fferen.i:T_ senses and it is 'i1_o't. t}.ie>.t_ 'aC1lEvé1T.1il'1g provision is every time ﬁisde purpose of _C.re&i_i13g;_Aa fiC€iL){1L'«..Z31. V_de'e1.I1ing provision be . t.o.__ «i1ij'L71i1c1:eW\5vhat is o'b"\?iouss':if,o'r 'i§=z'}1a:f.'.,is L11'E'.Ciiiii'i{aiI1 or to impose " for 't:?1ej'-»1)i1»r;5iose'~ oi" a statute an artificial i<>o:ist1?i;;¢r..::$:»-:.eV of a word or phrasAe thVaEwou1ciV'z'1oi cii.11ervvise prevai}, bui, in each ea«s'e'"'1i:.V wouici be 21 question V = ssV_t04:_'v.fith::"what object the Legislature H '-- a deeming provision. In St.Au}j}r:i"" V. Attom.ey~Ger1e.ra1 LORD AA ?RAi).{_fLEFFE1 observed thus:

"The worci 'deemed' used a great. deal in iriociern Iegisiaikzn. as»/"

effect to and 16 C ,/'~?~.-".

WA 3893/2005 \V.A.3928,/2805 Sometimes it is ueed to impose for the ptmposes of a st.at.ute an e1r€.ifi(:ia1 ccmsi:.ruc.i;ion of 21 word or phrase that would not ol.h€1'wise prevail. Sometimes it used to put. A ' beyond doubt a p£lfT{i'CU;i;_f.i"

construction that mighf i3--i;her\}x%i.Se be 'LLli"£(',€1't8.i11. SometirrViVes_V"M' {i't':V used to give :41:

ciesoription that if1o1;_i,:d--e-S obvious. V_s(i'1a_.t what: .

irnpoéS_ibfe§j.?_ the aggrieved person"'-f.<o%o_tefer_ to the Labour Officer, wif1o»3e 'decie<1o}1 shail be final. If Rule , A 65¢['2}.,"i3_3,s._to be'i'f1i.efp1*ei'ed in such a manner V t§'o'g:onfeff4'deemed status on the failure of the "n'1:3;nagei_ne171{'. to communicate in writillg iiﬁidays from the date of receiple of the AA letjiei", iihen Ruie 65 (5) cannoi: be SLICII interp1*eta£ion would make Rule 65(5) amuse/redundant. The rights; and <3b1ig3J{'.i(3:'2_s :~soughi: to be la"?

Ci/VV.

'NA 3893/ 2005 W .A.3Q28[2C)O5 enforced by the appellant: are these ereatecl by the lncltzetrial DiSp'z,1f..E.'.$ Act and the r1.1leS ll framed thereimder. When the dispute relajteﬁe 5 V to the enforcement of a right or an Ob}£g{5?}:'i,§.§)I;J.-.3"

created L1mfie1' the Act, t.he'a"' remedy available to the xvor'k'n1ei1"'lis llt;o'"g.ez_ adjudieatziou of the di£.<pu.te ui"x<ie1"

before the Competent the Labour Officer uI1:ie.1_f Ru'ie"65l_j5)j'e.{&the Tamil Nadu Industrial Die'p1;.'Ees. .

46. 'I11: vtexvgg l'anguage employed?'-».iun of the and Rule 65{t13}"{" Rules hffaihéed thereunder requiring' e'pe{;~1.fic.afeeegtiition in the manner as pre\ﬂrided"'--fd'£':,VA" wetare of the considered \{iew_ that there n'1'L1si; be a positive aetioll. on ~:t.&i1e:,,.\.tpart of "Vt.?(1'e""em.ployer to reeogrlise the r_ne11t.i0ned in the list of Union as V".--Freteet;ed~.:Werkr;1en before they eeu.1c:l claim "~«pr0t.ve(:ti6n guara1nt4eed to them under Section 823 the Industrial Disputes Act and the Vleezleept: of deemed ree0gnit.ior1"' e.a':1n0t. be lblitnpljedly i:mp0rt.es:1 into the Section to pmvide legislaztit--'e safegguaréis. Unlesse there we,/=w-'D "V J § E Hwy"

5"

7 ,LMM,l..

i 18 wg 3893,f20{}§ cm'.

w.A.3928,z29o5 is a positive decigian iakﬁn. by the management in this regard and communicated to the trade llI1i£"_'3I"1 in \m*iti1j1;;;,_:f"""

withm the stipulated time, it cannot be % that the workmen have :'ia'iiti;r1:1ﬁa"i:ic3gi.ijg%'V:v '. acquired the status cf "protect%3«d on the failure of eriipi'éyer communicate within 15 OurV"viv§ixr*v':is.':':E also fortified by thef;ieciS'i'bii-I'j'oif"*i",};1e Apex"

Court in 13. H . Kaiyani X? 'Air. v*A§:;:a1Cutia (supra). In viavif of the contentioifi _ is 3.

protected _w§riiIIié;n» . be Vgountenanceci

12. Sci coiiid AL)é'si§en fmm the interpretation of "i:'i*i.s:_ pr.r;~$§':si>;;ii'1»£i.i_0f anci 4 of Rules 62 of Kaimataka R1'E 1t';fE3.T théiie_'"iS*~ such deeming provision so far as the ' recogniiion_Q'fi:ari:; employee a3 'Protected Workman'. Even Apex; {:(:;urt in the decision reported in AIR 1963 SC :30 C 282] (P.i~I.Ka1ya:rii V. M/s.Air France, """::}»'3_g1<;§"§iti:a ) has held as under:

19 WA 3893/2{)O5 C zw.

W.z'~X.3928;'20€)i3 "5. .................. "The Labour Ce:)ur't. has held that a.co<>1"din;_g to the mlfzs framed by the Gove.rmne11t of West: Bengai as; to the recognition of protected workmon {There must:

be some p(>si"{;ive action on the part of"__€§:h'e 1 empioyer in .regard to the re(:og11itio:1Moi'~--.a1fL.A_ " n emp1oyee as 21 protected w<)rI¢;.1ﬁa'11«o Could claim to be .21 proteciod the purposse of 52.33. Not¥i'ing sh'oi>g1*1./M to us against this xriev{?§'wV.o_VIA1: jhét therefore of any (:irigje:1<:'e mas:.:'iooj"1<::A(:ogriifiAoi'§, the labour Courf' '%1f.§g}§€1_§}L:' the appeilarlt. was V11 01: ix?t;r1{r'.':;'iei:a and t.ho1'éfor-on}i)re\}i}:>i;1S 'pérmiséioh Lmder 333(3) of the ';Ac't W'<:'iL:1-~E.gi% néctessary before his dismissal." A V

13._ So,"«3v<:n,.a_s'*;:ouId be seen from the principles §iai,CI c1'o.\3Vr2.A'-?:)y'~«i;Ahe.A}5éX"'Co11rt, a positive a(tt.i(m on the part o£__t,1*;_§: {imp}oy*z%Vi*Vo.§é:_j..:1e(:essary recognising 21:1'; empioyee as a 'P1*otc5;tcd.WC§1*i{n1en'. in the case on hand, it is « Li"--§;eEovar1t"I2o V7'r1oi:<-.=. that"; i:h.ere is no positwe a(:ti_on on the p'c1I'i1 of--1:hs_ _é5:npIc>ye;' w}_1i<*h led {,0 the cii::;pu'i'o and ii; is; that first:

5 1 3') 20 X-VA 3893;'2{)O5 C;"'vV.

\~'v'.A.3928/12,005 respondent who took a decision refusirlg the 1'ecog::i_tioI1 of the aferesaicl two workmen as 'P'r0i:e{:ted W-'0rk1:ﬁe,i:7L:".e.S9 as stated above. when a person is facing eri:11i':::__é1E .(_:h_::"1:'gee__f V' the law would not come to the he}A_A;'j"0f'_s'J,Ie1.;1 .pe1x_<3o11"S«' to':

protect, them so as to defeat * legislation.

14. This Court gudgment, in W.P.No.33915/;20;7);.§' has taken into COI].S1'd€1'3U.Oi} after the expiry of the be given the status of 'P1'0tecee<j that in Case if the period has already eis<pire'd",' there is no question of recognising *~,_.f;1s 'Peeieeeted Workmen'. So when the rueeeg.:;iVti0-£1"=x25}2r;$ -seught for the period from 01_.05.2000 to _3O.04';'?40Q'1', the said period had expired by the time iaetitions were filed, i;1"ae1"e is no qL1esti0n of _ gra;z_1if1'11g recognition retrospectweiy, p2arti<:'z,11a1*iy in a ease

-«ﬁéviiere the proposed w(:rr}s:men are of e.br1<)1*'ma}_ eendu£:t;, WA 3893/200:3 C/W. w,;x.392e;'2oo5 Any how. it is :'elevemt'. to note t:ha.t the scope of the__wor<':E 21 'disput.e" used in Sub»Rule 4 ofRz11e 62 is wide e11Vot;gl2..«'t.<) include the workmen against. whom there E1176..C;fiil1l}3Vel'}..' Charges and thereby diffe.ren.€:iat:e between thef' H bad. Though there is no (32:11EiL1Sti\?(f,..(ii3fir1it~it§ll'affhé fW.o:"o 'dispute. there can be many il1L1Stlf£1'f,i(3Y1S::vI:7ti'}1C£}'gS'{"WVl,{hi~C--h' one is under Section 33 {4} of the lAet,"'wit.h number of employees to be recto§n.ised""aodV the_o'th"er~wt:'ould "

be the aberrant conduct. of £VOi'}{jI1E1_11, t1he:refore:.% in our considered opinion, '91p.erso"r1 is-;:1ot._ entitled for the recognition Workmen', so long there are Criminal e_l71az:ge:3. agéiinet. vvl.'}j'he'Ee'ari1ed Single Judge took into V"--eooeic¥.er2itio1f1«v_the provisions of Section 33 [4] of the Act fact: that there were criminal charges agai_n-st _fl'1E:;'.:'~"?l.f01'€S3ld two workmen, held that the ASsista1'1t. ":.I,ahour Ccimmissitaner the fi1'st. 1'€Sp()I1dCI1T, I wae not j11Sl'.ifi€3(i in I'€;'.f£1Si}'"1g the 1fe<:og,_§11iti<:s:1 of the 3' :3 ..m:*""" HAW 22 WA 13893 /2005 {.2 /'W, W.A.3Q28/2005 said workmen. This approach in our oonssidered. opinion is erroneous. So also, we disagree with the View expressed by the High Court of Gujarat in the decision referie_.4d._V_to supra. At: the S{:11"I1€ time, the High Court of taken a just View by enlarging refe1're<:I to in Rule 88(5) of the 'I'a{:;11 similar to Ruie 62(4) of Karnaiiolligg there has to be 8. poeltive of the employer recognizing' L. _ as 'Protected Workmen' and ingease on his part to recognise has to be decided by the Cooeiljaéiog he Respondent. No.1 after hearing-'boil; taken a just decision refusing V. wrorkmen and that order has to " View of the matter, the writ. appeais are ';<1HC)\V€'.d vset.t:§:1g aside the o:'dea* of the 1e.21m.ed Singie in the afosresaid writ; petitiions ar1d the order of1:he 3' {owe ,5 ' , ' ow WE; ggggjwﬁg $5' 3' 1"

7* 23 xwx. 3893/2005 Cjw.

W.A.3€?«28/2005 first 1*espc>11de11t. 1.63., the Asssisi.a':31t. Labour Commisgioner reftising r<3cogr1ii'.ioI1 of the aforesaid persons as 'P'r{ji:e C;f;éd \zVork.m€'n." is restored.

JL Ex}

14.:

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

M/S Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd vs Assistant Labour Commissioner on 4 February, 2011