Karnataka High Court
Teknic Euchner Electronics Private ... vs Shenkaravva D G on 16 February, 2016
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRAURY 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION Nos.49990-50015/2015 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
TEKNIC EUCHNER ELECTRONICS
PRIVATE LIMITED
#64, ELECTRONIC CITY,
HOSUR ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 099.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI RAJESH JAISING
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S SANTHOSH NARAYAN, ADV.)
AND:
1. SHENKARAVVA D G
D/O SHIVABASAPPA,
C/O MANJUNATHA BUILDING,
HANUMA REDDY COLONY,
GOLLAHALLI,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE - 560 100.
2. MALLIKARJUNA S B
S/O S.K.BASAVARAJAIAH
WARD NO. 7, HOUSE NO.1225,
RATHANAMMA LAYOUT,
GOVINDA SHETTY PALYA,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE - 560 100.
3. HARINAKSHI N D
W/O B.H.NANDAKUMAR
HOUSE #14/15,
JAI MARUTHI NILAYA,
2
5TH A CROSS, NEAR HT LINE,
SIR M V NAGAR,
RAMAMURTHYNAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 016.
4. NAGARAJ RAO K
S/O M.S. ANANDA RAO
CHANNA REDDY BUILDING,
GOLLAHALLI,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE - 560 100.
5. LOKESH M S/O MAHADEVAPPA,
SHANKAR REDDY BUILDING,
KONAPPANA AGRAHARA,
DOOR NO.4, ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
HOUSR MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 100.
6. LALITHA D/O. SRISHAILAPPA,
SHRIDHARA REDDY BUILDING,
NEAR GANESH TEMPLE,
GOLLAHALLI, ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE 560 100
7. CHANDRASHEKAR R S/O. I. RAJU,
# 64, SUNDRAPPA LAYOUT,
VINAYAKA NAGARA,
KAMMASANDRA ROAD,
BEHIND SFS SCHOOL,
ELECTRONIC CITY (POST)
BANGALORE 560100
8. L.N. REDDY S/O. H N IPAREDDY,
C/O M. KRISHNA REDDY,
# 375, KRISHNA REDDY LAYOUT,
HOSUR ROAD,
ELECTRONIC CITY (POST)
BANGALORE 560100
9. BASAVANAGOUDA ANUR
S/O RAMAPPA,
# 64, SUNDRAPPA LAYOUT,
VINAYAKA NAGARA,
KAMMASANDRA ROAD,
BEHIND SFS SCHOOL,
ELECTRONIC CITY (POST)
BANGALORE 560100
3
10. VENKATAMA
W/O. THIMMARAYAPPA
#20/6, THIRUPALYA,
BOOMSANDRA POST,
JIGANI HOBLI, ANAEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DIST.560105
11. JAYALAKSHMI W/O RAMAPPA,
C/O THIMARAYAPPA,
# 106 THIRUPALYA,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE-560 100
12. RANGAPPA V S/O VENKATARAMAPPA,
C/O GOPAL BUILDING,
ROOM NO.1,VINAYAKA NAGAR,
THIRUPALYA ROAD,HEBBAGODI,
BANGALORE-560100
13. ARBEENTAJ W/O SAWOOD PASHA,
# 346, ANWAR BUILDING,
SHIKARIPALYA,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE-560 100
14. KAVITA W/O HOLIYAPPA ANAVERI
C/O RAMAREDDY BUILDING,
# 172/4, NEAR OMX LOGISTICS,
VINAYAKA NAGAR, HEBBAGODI
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 100
15. REKHA BANAKAR D/O RUDRAPPA,
C/O RAMAIAH BUILDING,
# 58/11, KRISHNA REDDY LAYOUT,
KONAPPANA AGRAHARA,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE-560 0100
16. KUMARAPPA G S/O GOVINDAPPA,
C/O GOVINDAREDDY BUILDING,
GOWTHAM PROVISION STORE,
NEAR SHANESWARA TEMPLE,
TIRUPALYA,
BANGALORE-560100
17. LATHA K N W/O PARAMESH B R
C/O MUNISWAMY REDDY BUILDING,
NEAR GANESH TEMPLE,
4
PREM NAGAR,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE-560100
18. SURESH M S/O MARIGOWDA G
C/O KRISHNA REDDY BUILDING,
NEAR MANU BAR,
KONAPPANA AGRAHARA,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE-560100
19. CHETAN KUMAR S
S/O PUTTUMADAPPA,
C/O RAMAIAH BUILDING,
NO.58/11, KRISHNA REDDY LAYOUT,
KONAPPANNA AGRAHARA,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE-560100
20. GIRISHA NAIKA K.C
S/O CHIKKARANGANAIKA
C/O KRISHNAPPA BUILDING,
NO.429/4, KRISHNA REDDY LAYOUT,
KONAPPANA AGRAHARA,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE-560100
21. SURESH H N S/O NARAYANA REDDY
#77, HULUMANGALA POST,
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE-560105.
22. HANUMA GOWDA G PATIL
S/O G. PATIL
KRISHANAPPA BUILDING,
WARD #6, HOUSE NO 4,
GOVINDASHETTY PALYA,
NEAR ANUGRAHA HOSPITAL,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE-560 100.
23. GIRIJA BADIGER S/O MOUNESH
C/O MUNIRAJA REDDY BUILDING,
GOVINDASHETTY PALYA,
ELECTRONIC CITY,
BANGALORE-560100.
24. PRAKASH C T S/O THIMMAIAH G
C/O SRINIVASA REDDY BUILDING
5
#E-413, GOLLAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
VINAYAKA NAGARA,
BEHIND JMP HIGH SCHOOL
HEBBAGODI, BANGLAORE-560100.
25. MANJUNATH C S/O CHANDRAPPA S
C/O GOPALA KRISHNA BUILDIN G,
NANDINI NANDITA BUILDING,
THIRUKPALYA MAIN ROAD,
HEBBAGODI, BANGALORE-560100.
26. H.N. SANGANA GOUDAR
S/O NAGANAGOUDA
C/O HARSHATHA BUILDING,
NO 477/5, KEERTHY LAYOUT CROSS
ANEKAL ROAD, CHANDAPUR,
BANGALORE-560 089.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V S NAIK, ADV.)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER
TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.7.2015 AT ANN-M AND THE
ORDER DATED 21.9.2015 PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDITIONAL
LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN I.D. NO. 36-61/2014 ON
I.A. NO. IV AT ANN-S.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING :
ORDER
The petitioner-Management is before this Court in these petitions assailing the orders dated 25.07.2015 (Annexure-M) and 21.09.2015 (Annexure-S) passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D.No.36 to 61/ 2014.
6
2. The respondents claiming to be aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 20.05.2014 made against each of them have filed the claim petitions under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 ('I.D. Act' for short). The petitioners in that light have also filed applications seeking interim relief by directing the petitioner-Management to pay 100% of the wages that were to be drawn by the respondents. The petitioner- Management has filed the counter statement, objection statement to the application and the matter has been set down for evidence of the parties on the said application for interim relief.
3. At the first instance, the Labour Court while considering the application in I.A.No.2 filed by the petitioner-Management in seeking opportunity to record their evidence on the interim relief application and to cross examine the respondent-Workmen, allowed the application by the order dated 05.05.2015 and directed both the parties to lead their evidence. In the process of 7 recording the evidence, the purport of the cross examination to be permitted arose for consideration. The Labour Court by the order dated 25.07.2015 has expressed the opinion that the final issue cannot be decided at the initial stage. In that view, the petitioner- Management was permitted to cross-examine the workmen without touching the merits of the case and be restricted with regard to interim relief.
4. The petitioner-Management thereafter filed an application seeking to produce, display and confront the CCTV and video recording. Since the said application was objected, the Labour Court on hearing the same has expressed the opinion that the production of the documents amounts to touching upon the main case and as such the application was rejected, however reserving the liberty to produce the same when the evidence is adduced on merits of the case. The petitioner-Management claiming to be aggrieved by the said two orders have filed this petition. 8
5. Heard Sri S.N.Murthy, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner-Management and Sri V.S.Naik, learned counsel for the respondent-Workmen and perused the petition papers.
6. In the background of the contentions and keeping in perspective the scope of the issue for consideration in the instant petition, a perusal of the decisions in the case of D.K.Yadav -vs-
J.M.A.Industries Limited [1993(3)SCC259] ; in the case of Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki -vs- Presiding Officer and another [1986(3) SCC 131] and in the case of The Management of Kanoria Industries Ltd.
-vs- Bagalkot Cement Company Workers Union & Another ( ILR 2001 Kar 890) relied on by the learned counsel for respondent-Workmen indicates that they will not be relevant in the present context, though the same may arise and become relevant at a later stage for the purpose of deciding the very application seeking interim relief. I am of the said opinion for the reason that the said decisions may arise in the context to 9 decide whether an unilateral dismissal without compliance of natural justice would be valid and also with regard to the stage at which the Court can grant the order for interim relief and to consider whether in that regard the dismissal without enquiry or the dismissal preceded by an enquiry will have any bearing. At this stage the application for interim relief is yet to be considered by the Labour Court and any opinion expressed on that aspect will prejudice the parties. Moreover the issue for consideration herein as noticed above is still at a stage prior to the decision on the interim relief application and is at a stage to consider the documents that could be allowed to be produced and the extent to which the evidence can be adduced.
7. Similarly the decision in the case of The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. -vs- The Management and others (1973-I-LLJ-278) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner-Management also will not assist this Court at this juncture in deciding the issue on hand. In 10 the said decision it is no doubt held that whether it is in the case of no enquiry or if the enquiry held by the employer is found to be defective, the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality and validity of the order has to give an opportunity to the employer and the employee. In fact on that aspect there can be no quarrel and at this stage, even in the instant case, the issue of the validity or otherwise of the dismissal is still at large before the Labour Court. But the question is, in a stage prior to going to those aspects and when it is still at the stage of considering the interim relief application, can the leave to produce the documents be declined and can the evidence be restricted?
8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner- Management would contend that the grant of interim relief is not mechanical nor can the consideration be only with regard to the hardship of the workman, but the Labour Court will have to look into the aspect relating to the prima facie case in the background of the justification for the action being provided by the 11 employer. In that regard, the evidence tendered will have to be looked into and thereafter a decision is to be taken, is the contention. In that light, it is pointed out that the Presiding Officer through the order dated 05.05.2015 had permitted the opportunity, but the same has been curtailed by the subsequent Presiding Officer which is not justified.
9. The learned senior counsel in order to substantiate the contention has relied on the decision of a Full Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in the case of Sampat B.G. -vs- State of West Bengal and others (2000-I-LLJ-565) wherein it is held as hereunder;
"17. There cannot, therefore, be any doubt that once an interim relief is prayed for, the tribunal has to apply its mind as regard existence prima facie case. What would be the nature of the prima facie case in such a situation is one of the questions which also arises for our consideration.
18. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workmen that as the appropriate Government itself considers the dispute before making an order of reference, the 12 same itself would constitute a prima facie case. We cannot accept such a submission. The appropriate Government while making an order of reference, exercises an administrative power. It is concerned as regard existence of a dispute or an apprehended dispute. It cannot enter into the merit of the matter. A reference is made only for an adjudication on the merit of the matter. (See : Eastern Distillers) (supra). Thus, reference by the appropriate Government itself cannot constitute a prima facie case in favour of the workman. It is thus, obligatory on the part of the Tribunal prima facie to consider the merit of the cases of the respective parties as also the nature of dispute upon taking into consideration the relevant materials therefor. The question as to whether in a fact situation a workman is entitled to any interim relief or not will also be a relevant consideration."
10. Similarly, the learned senior counsel has also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Patna, in the case of The Management of Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna -vs- The Workman of the Bihar State Electricity Board and others (1971-I-LLJ-389) wherein it is held as hereunder;
13
"10. In the impugned order, Annexure 7, which, as stated above, we were informed, has been published as an interim award, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has merely stated that he has perused the pleadings of the parties and the papers attached to it and he has considered the two Supreme Court cases which I have referred to earlier in my judgment and he has considered the matter carefully. After saying so, he has directed the payment of 1/3rd of wages to respondent No.2 till the disposal of the case. As stated earlier the only ground given in the petition was that respondent No.2 was unemployed and was undergoing great hardships. That merely cannot be a ground for grant of interim relief of the kind granted by the Tribunal. It was incumbent upon it to discuss some facts of the case and to find out prima facie in what way the order of termination of the service of the petitioner seemed to be unjustified. After recording such a finding the interim relief could be granted and not otherwise. The interim order or award of the Tribunal, therefore, suffers from an infirmity of the kind which would justify its quashing by grant of a writ of certiorari."
11. In the background of the above noticed decisions, it is clear that the grant of interim relief is not mechanical but will require application of mind to the 14 facts and circumstances arising in the case and on assessing the prima facie case the order is required to be made. But the same will not mean that a full fledged trial even on the aspect relating to interim relief is to be held. Ultimately it is about following the rules of natural justice, more particularly when the strict rules of Evidence Act is not applicable to industrial adjudication. If that be so, the evidence sought to be produced cannot be shut out absolutely on the ground that what is to be considered at that stage is only with regard to interim relief. There would have to be such evidence on record to substantiate the pleadings in the context in which it is being considered and as such it cannot be put in a straight jacket formula and the opportunity to produce the documents cannot be declined or restrict the evidence in abstract without reference to the context. On the other hand, the admissibility or otherwise of a particular document or evidence at a particular stage will depend on the facts arising in each case which will have to be regulated by the Court while in the process of recording the evidence. 15
12. If in that light the present facts are noticed, as against the averments made by the respondent- Workmen in the application seeking interim relief, the petitioner-Management has filed its objection statement to oppose the said application and in that regard, the evidence will have to be tendered. Therefore, to reject the application whereunder the documents were sought to be produced outright will not be justified. The appropriate course is to allow the application and take the documents on record. However, when the evidence is adduced and the documents are tendered and in that circumstance, if the documents relied upon relate to the aspect of interim relief depending on the context in which it will be relied upon, it is for the Labour Court either to allow or curtail the evidence with reference to the context in which it is tendered, since the consideration as to what evidence should be allowed to be adduced in the facts and circumstances of a case will be within the domain of the Labour Court/Tribunal. But, if no opportunity is granted at all without even 16 testing the relevance thereof, it will amount to violation of principles of natural justice.
13. Having stated so, it is also necessary to keep in mind the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.P.Maheshwari vs. Delhi Administration and others (AIR 1984 SC 153) relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent-Workmen to contend that the instant petition filed against an interim order of the Labour Court cannot be entertained. From a perusal of the decision, it is clear that ordinarily this Court will not entertain the petition arising out of the interim orders passed by the Labour Courts or such other Tribunals. The reason for doing so is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the Labour Court has prima- facie arrived at a conclusion on a preliminary issue and if such orders are allowed to be assailed at every stage, it would result in breaking the resistance of workmen due to the delay that may be caused in the adjudication of the main dispute until the interim issue is decided by the higher forum. In the instant case, the orders 17 assailed however are not of the nature where a consideration has already been made on the materials available, but this petition is against the order made by the Labour Court on imposing a rider even to the extent it would consider the contentions to be put forth by the petitioner-Management to decide a preliminary issue relating to interim relief. In that circumstance, when this Court has hereinabove arrived at the conclusion relating to the manner in which opportunity is to be granted, this Court will also have to be sensitive to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in safe-guarding the interest of the respondent-Workmen to allow them to maintain the tempo of the resistance so that the main dispute would ultimately be adjudicated in an appropriate manner by the Labour Court.
14. If that be the position, as noticed in the instant case the jural relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The fact that they were dismissed from service without enquiry is also the admitted position. However, the explanation put forth by the 18 petitioner-Management is that the executives of the company would not muster the courage to depose if the enquiry was held and also keeping in view the volatile situation, the enquiry was not held and the dismissal orders were passed. If that be the position, though the petitioner-Management may avail their opportunity of proving the charge before the Labour Court for the first time and even in that background when the application seeking interim relief is to be considered, this Court can also take notice of the fact that if the management themselves had conducted the enquiry and due to the volatile situation or otherwise, if the concerned Workmen were to be kept under suspension, even in such circumstance, the workmen concerned would have been entitled to subsistence allowance. Therefore, in a situation when there would be some delay in consideration of the interim relief application by providing opportunity of tendering evidence to the petitioner-Management as per their request, such opportunity shall be availed by the petitioner- Management by paying subsistence allowance till the 19 application is considered and disposed of. Thereafter it would depend on the decision that will be taken by the Labour Court on the interim relief application.
15. On that aspect, it is made clear that the subsistence allowance shall be paid at 50% of the last drawn wages for the first two months and if the opportunity to lead evidence and the disposal of the interim relief application extends beyond two months at the instance of the petitioner-Management, the subsistence allowance shall become payable at 100% of the last drawn wage until the application is disposed of.
16. Hence, for all the aforestated reasons, I pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The orders impugned herein dated
25.07.2015 and 21.09.2015 are set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.IV is allowed and the documents produced are directed to be taken on record.
20
(ii) The cross examination and the evidence though permitted shall be regulated by the Labour Court in terms of the observations made above.
(iii) The petitioner-Management in order to avail the said opportunity shall pay the subsistence allowance as stated in paragraph No.15 supra.
(iv) The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms without costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/bms