Karnataka High Court
M/S Tamura Elcomponics Technologies ... vs The Commissioner Of Labour on 10 April, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
WP No. 54347 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 54347 OF 2017 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S TAMURA ELCOMPONICS TECHNOLOGIES PVT.
LTD.,
(EARLIER KNOWN AS ROMARSH ELCOMPONICS
INDIA PVT. LTD.),
PLOT NO.29-P1, HIREHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
TUMKUR, INDIA, 572 168,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL
MANAGER - OPERATIONS,
MR. AZAM PASHA (MAJOR).
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KASTURI K., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR J., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
R HEMALATHA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
AND:
KARNATAKA
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR ,
KARMIKA BHAVANA,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 029.
2. TAMURA ELCOMPONICS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
PLOT NO.29-P1,
HIREHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
TUMKUR - 572 168.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
-2-
WP No. 54347 of 2017
GENERAL SECRETARY,
MR GIRISH R (MAJOR).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K B NARAYANASWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. BHOJEGOWDA J KOLLER., AGA FOR R1)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED: 4.10.2017 PASSED BY R-1 AT ANNEXURE-Q AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner and respondent No.2 entered into a settlement under Section 18(3) read with Section 2(P) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') and as per the settlement, Workmen were entitled for variable dearness allowance as per the notification issued by the Statement Government from time to time. In terms of settlement arrived between the parties, the petitioner-Management having not paid the variable Dearness allowance as specified under the settlement, the second respondent filed an application under Section 33(c)(1) read with Section 33(c)(5) of the Act to issue the revenue recovery certificate for Rs.25,74,810/- The first respondent by impugned order treated the amount due to the second respondent as revenue dues to be collected from the petitioner-Management. Hence, this petition.
-3- WP No. 54347 of 20172. Sri.K.Kasturi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Workmen are not entitled for variable dearness allowance in view of the termination of agreement, as stipulated in Article 25(c) of the agreement, since the sales dropped to less than 50%. He further submits that respondent No.2 without affording sufficient opportunity to substantiate the claim that the sales dropped to less than 50% has passed the impugned order and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that though sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner, the petitioner has not choosen to file objection nor produced any documents before this Court to substantiate that the sales dropped to less than 50% and sought for dismissal of the petition.
4. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
5. The petitioner and respondent No.2 entered into settlement under Section 18(3) read with Section 2(p) of the Act. Clause-9 of the agreement specifies that the variable dearness allowance shall be paid as per the notification issued by the State Government from time to time. Clause-25 of the agreement specifies that the settlement shall be terminated upon occurrence of any of the events. Sub-clause-c specifies that in the event the sales of the petitioner-Management drops -4- WP No. 54347 of 2017 to less than 50% of sales for three consecutive months, the agreement shall stand terminated.
6. In the instant case, the petitioner has not issued any termination notice stating that the agreement stands terminated since the sales of the petitioner-Management has dropped to less than 50%.
7. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that though sufficient time was provided, the petitioner has not chosen to furnish documents to substantiate the claim that agreement stands terminated as specified under clause-25 of the agreement. The affidavit filed by the petitioner also does not disclose that the sales of the petitioner-Management dropped to less than 50% in three consecutive years except stating that the sales of one of its customer dropped to less than 50%.
8. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by respondent No.2. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69 CT:STK