Karnataka High Court
Workmen Of Binny Ltd vs The Management Of Binny Ltd on 5 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45216
WP No. 999 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.999 OF 2010 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
WORKMEN OF BINNY LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY BINNY
KARMIKARA SANGHA BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY
NO.23/2, I MAIN ROAD
SESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU - 560 020.
PRESENT ADDRESS
NO.11, DR. T.C.M. ROYAN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560053.
BY ITS ADVOCATE K.S. SUBRAHMANYA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K S SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
SHARMA ANAND
AND:
CHAYA
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
1. THE MANAGEMENT OF BINNY LTD
AGRAHARAM ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 023
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
BY ITS ADVOCATES,
M/S. KASTURI ASSOCIATES
THE MANAGEMENT OF
S.V. GLOBAL MILL LIMITED
NO.106, ARMENIAN STREET
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45216
WP No. 999 of 2010
CHENNAI - 600 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ASST. GENERAL MANAGER
MR. R. MURALI
BY ITS ADVOCATE
MR. SHIRISH KRISHNA.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FRO
SMT. K SUBHA ANANTHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE AWARD DATED 13.03.2009 VIDE (ANNEXURE-N)
HEREIN AND HOLD THAT REFUSAL OF WARK TO 24 WORKMEN
LISTED IN THE REFERENCE IS ILLEGAL RETRENCHMENT
HAVING BEEN EFFECTED WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF 25 N OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT,
AND ALSO GRANT RELIEF OF REINSTATEMENT WITH FULL
BACK WAGES, CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE CONCERNED WORKMEN.
THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY FURTHER BE PLEASED TO HOLD
THAT THESE WORKMEN ARE ENTITLED TO BE CONFIRMED AS
PERMANENT OPERATIVES/ OPERATIVE ASSISTANTS IN TERMS
OF SETTLEMENT DATED 19.07.1989 AND PAID DA IN
ADDITIONA TO BASIC WAGES WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATES
THEY WERE WORKING AS OPERATIVE / OPERATIVE
ASSISTANTS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:45216
WP No. 999 of 2010
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed by the First Party, challenging the challenging the Award in Ref. No.30/97 dated 13.03.2009 on the file of Presiding Officer, I Addl. Labour Court at Bangalore, rejecting the reference.
2. Relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that, the petitioner is a Union, registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, alleging that, 24 workmen who had successfully undergone the apprenticeship / multi-skill training were eligible for absorption as permanent workers as per the terms of settlement dated 19.07.1989, however the Second Party - Management, refused to absorb their employment and as such, the 24 workmen have approached the Government to refer the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication.
3. In view of the Order dated 29.07.1997 passed by the Government of Karnataka, Reference was registered as Ref.No.30/97 before the Labour Court. Claim petition was filed before the Labour Court wherein the 24 workmen stated that -4- NC: 2024:KHC:45216 WP No. 999 of 2010 they were inducted into the first respondent - Management as apprentice, however, the Second Party - respondent No.1 herein, refused to accept them as permanent workers and that apart, the issuance of the notice dated 11.01.1997 (Annexure- D) by the respondent No.1 is illegal and as such, the 24 alleged workmen sought for interference of the Labour Court.
4. After issuance of summons, the Second Party - Management entered appearance and filed counter statement denying the settlement dated 19.07.1989 and raised a specific contention that the 24 alleged workmen were appointed as trainees received stipend and they were not identified as permanent employees and therefore, sought for dismissal of the claim petition filed by the petitioners / Union, herein.
5. The Labour Court after considering the pleadings on record, considered the reference order made by the Government to consider whether the 24 employees have to be accepted as employees of respondent No.1 herein. Before the Labour Court, the petitioners herein have examined five witnesses as W.W.1 to W.W.5 and marked 61 documents as Exs.W1 to W64. On behalf of the Second Party, official of the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:45216 WP No. 999 of 2010 Management was examined as M.W.1 and produced ten documents and same were marked as Exs.M1 to M10. The Labour Court after considering the material on record, by Award dated 13.03.2009 (Annexure-N), rejected the Reference and being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court.
6. I have heard Sri. K.S. Subrahmanya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/Union, Sril K. Mohan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. K. Subha Ananthi, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and Sri. Shirish Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioners herein have been appointed as trainees / multi- skilled operative trainees, and accordingly, these persons cannot be considered as Workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is erroneous. He further contended that, the petitioners herein have examined five witnesses who have deposed that they have been considered and identified as regular employees of the respondent No.1 and -6- NC: 2024:KHC:45216 WP No. 999 of 2010 therefore, the evidence of workmen was ignored by the Labour Court and accordingly, it is submitted that the Labour Court has committed an error in arriving at a conclusion to reject the Reference without considering the letters addressed by these alleged workmen as per Annexure-C to the Writ Petition. He also invited the attention of the Court to the evidence of W.W.1(Annexure-K) and submitted that the respondent - Management ought to have classified these persons as permanent workmen and without doing so, the finding recorded by the Labour Court is required to be interfered with in this Writ Petition.
8. Per contra, Sri. K. Mohan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioners herein have not produced any iota of document to establish that they have been employed permanently. It is also the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that, as the petitioners herein have admitted before the Labour Court that they have been appointed as trainees / apprentices that itself would make it clear that the Reference has been rightly rejected by the Labour Court. In this regard, learned counsel referred to the Judgment of the Hon'ble -7- NC: 2024:KHC:45216 WP No. 999 of 2010 Supreme Court in the case of MUKESH K. TRIPATHI Vs. Sr. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, L.I.C. AND OTHERS, reported in AIR 2004 SC 4179 and argued that no interference is called for in this Writ Petition.
9. Sri. Shirish Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, submitted that, respondent No.1 - Company has been wound up as per order of the BIFR and the respondent No.2 has taken the affairs of the respondent No.1 and during the said period the petitioners herein were no more the workmen of the respondent No.1 and therefore, it is submitted that as the petitioners herein themselves have admitted before the Labour Court that they have been appointed as trainees, no interference is called for in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
10. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful examination of the evidence on record, as per the evidence of one Kemparaju, S/o Puttalingaiah (Annexure-K), wherein, he has deposed that he was appointed as an apprentice for some period and thereafter as multi-skilled Operative Trainee for some months. It is also -8- NC: 2024:KHC:45216 WP No. 999 of 2010 deposed that as per the Settlement of 1989, these trainees will have to be classified as workmen from 01.01.1993 and the said aspect makes it clear that these 24 workmen were never treated as 'workmen' and they were appointed as trainees by the respondent No.1. It is also to be noted from the claim petition at Annexure-F, wherein the pleadings at paragraph No.5 would make it clear that, these petitioners were appointed as trainees / apprentices and their stipend was periodically increased as per the terms of the Settlement for some period. However, nothing is forthcoming from the claim petition itself that they were appointed as permanent employees. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Labour Court, wherein, the Labour Court after appreciating the evidence of workmen i.e., W.W.1 to W.W.5, rightly arrived at the conclusion that these petitioners were appointed as trainees / apprentices and were not engaged in service as permanent employees. Taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Labour Court at paragraph No.18 of the impugned Award, it is concluded that these employees were working in various Departments of the first respondent - Management as Trainees or multi-skilled Operative Trainees -9- NC: 2024:KHC:45216 WP No. 999 of 2010 and at no point of time they were appointed or made as permanent workmen. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MUKESH K. TRIPATHI(supra), observed at para Nos.22, 37 and 38 of its Judgment, which is extracted as below:
22. It may be true, as has been submitted by Ms. Jaisingh, that S.K. Verma (supra) has not been expressly overruled in H.R. Adyanthaya (supra) but once the said decision has been held to have been rendered per incuriam, it cannot be said to have laid down a good law.
This Court is bound by the decision of the Constitution Bench.
********************
37. It is true that the definition of 'workman' as contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is exhaustive.
38. The interpretation clause contained in a statute although may deserve a broader meaning having employed the word 'includes' but therefor also it is necessary to keep in view the scheme of the object and purport of the statute which takes him out of the said definition. Furthermore, the interpretation section begins with the words "unless the context otherwise requires".
11. Having taken note of the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above, I am of the view that,
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45216 WP No. 999 of 2010 the Labour Court rightly rejected the Reference made by the Government to consider the case of the petitioners herein as workmen of respondent No.1.
12. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and this Court is having limited jurisdiction to interfere with the well reasoned Award made by the Labour Court by considering the entire aspect of the matter and this Court cannot sit as an Appellate court to disturb the well founded reasoning made by the Labour court.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50