Karnataka High Court
Armstrong Design And Acmitee India vs M/S Armstrong Design And Acmitee India ... on 13 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45948-DB
WA No. 430 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL No. 430 OF 2024 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. ARMSTRONG DESIGN AND ACMITEE INDIA
MANUFACTURING WORKERS UNION,
REGISTERED UNDER THE
TRADE UNIONS ACT, 1926
TRADE UNIONS OFFICE No. 138,
GROUND FLOOR, 9TH CROSS,
4TH MAIN, CHAMARAJAPET,
BENGALURU-560018.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VILAS RANGANATH DATAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU
Location: High
AND:
Court of
Karnataka
1. M/S ARMSTRONG DESIGN AND ACMITE INDIA
MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED.,
INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956/2013,
No.41 B, 2ND PHASE,
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
BENGALURU-560058.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR AND CHIEF MANAGER-
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45948-DB
WA No. 430 of 2024
2. THE ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER
DIVISION-2,
KARNATAKA STATE LABOUR INSTITUTE,
MANJUNATHANAGAR, BAGALGUNTE,
BENGALURU-560073.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.K. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
SRI K.S. HARISH, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 07/02/2024 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.1049/2024.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. Vilas Ranganath Datar for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. B.K. Prashanth for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. K.S. Harish for respondent No.2-Assistant Labour Commissioner.
2. The challenge in this writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is sought to be raised against the judgment and order dated 07.02.2024 whereby, the petition came -3- NC: 2024:KHC:45948-DB WA No. 430 of 2024 to be allowed, the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Division-2, Bengaluru came to be set aside and the matter was directed to be remitted back to the said authority for passing orders in accordance with law.
3. The prayer in the writ petition was to set aside the said order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner. In the course of the disciplinary action against the workman, the question cropped up whether the workman was the "protected workman" and whether he was entitled to such status in law as "protected workman".
4. Learned Single Judge has remanded the case for deciding whether the workman could be declared as "protected workman", the following was observed at paragraph 12 of the order, "The reasoning accorded by the Assistant Labour Commissioner that the workman is neither facing charges of serious offences nor has been convicted by the trial Court is not justifiable and the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Labour Court by following settled principles of law regarding the entitlement of a workman to be declared as "protected workman" in the facts stated supra."
5. It goes without saying that the remittance of the matter is for the purpose of deciding the issue regarding entitlement of the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:45948-DB WA No. 430 of 2024 workman to be declared as "protected workman" and to go into that issue in accordance with law. When the Assistant Labour Commissioner is going to address the said issue and render its decision in accordance with law, no interference is called for.
6. It goes without saying that the Assistant Labour Commissioner shall consider the aspect strictly in accordance with law, on merits and after giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides. All contentions available in law to both the parties are kept open to be raised before the Labour Authority.
7. It was submitted by learned advocate for the appellant that the application under Section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed by the Union to decide about the status of the workman as "protected workman" and that learned Single Judge ought to have decided the same in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. Learned advocate for the appellant relied on the order dated 11.12.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Wonderla Karmika Sangha vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bengaluru, Division-I and another in SLP (C) No.10697 of 2019 -5- NC: 2024:KHC:45948-DB WA No. 430 of 2024 to submit that the question of law is kept open by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that learned Single Judge ought to have considered the said aspect.
9. The above submission does not lead the case of the appellant anywhere inasmuch as learned Single Judge has only remanded the case to the Assistant Labour Commissioner.
10. It would be open to the appellant to raise this aspect before the Assistant Labour Commissioner as well to be considered in accordance with law.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11