Karnataka High Court
Parle Workers Union vs Government Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION No.12702/2012 (L-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.28183/2013 (L-RES)
IN W.P. No.12702/2012
BETWEEN:
M/S. PARLE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,
15, K.M. STONE, TUMKUR ROAD,
(N.H. NO.4), BANGALORE - 560 073,
REP. BY SRI B. BALACHANDRA RAI,
FACTORY MANAGER. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.K. SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI B.C. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001
BY TIS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. PARLE WORKERS UNION,
REG. NO.D.R.T. (B-3)10/2010-11
25, 4TH CROSS, BYRAPPA LAYOUT,
NAGASHETTY HALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 094
REP. BY K.S. SUBRAMANYA PRESIDENT. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI K.S. SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
LEADING TO THE PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS; ORDER OF
REFERENCE DATED 10.04.2012, PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
-2-
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, VIDE
ANNEXURE-O; ORDER DATED 10.04.2012, PASSED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, LABOUR DEPARTMENT
PROHIBITING LOCK-OUT VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND ETC.
IN W.P. No.28183/2013
BETWEEN:
PARLE WORKERS UNION
25, 4TH CROSS, BYRAPPA LAYOUT,
NAGASHETTIHALLI, BANGALORE - 56O 094
REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
SRI KARIBASAPPA. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.S. SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. PARLE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.
15KM STONE, TUMKUR ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 073
REPRESENTED BY SRI N. SURESH,
FACTORY MANAGER. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI C.K. SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI B.C. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
PORTION OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 10.04.2012 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A CONTAINING ISSUE NO.2 OF THE ORDER OF REFERENCE.
THIS COURT MAY ALSO BE PLEASED TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED
PORTION VIZ., STRIKE BY THE WORKMEN MENTIONED IN THE
PREAMBLE OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 10.04.2012 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND REPLACE IT BY THE WORDS LOCKOUT OF THE
FACTORY BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT MANAGEMENT.
-3-
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 13/02/2024 FOR ORDERS AND COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
W.P. No.12702/2012 is preferred by the management- M/s. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. assailing the order dated 10.04.2012 at Annexure-O and order dated 10.04.2012 at Annexure-P passed by respondent No.1 prohibiting the lockout.
2. W.P. No.28183/2013 is preferred by the Parle Workers Union assailing the order dated 10.04.2012 containing issue No.2 of the order of reference and seeking a direction to delete the impugned portion viz., strike by the workmen mentioned in the preamble of the Government Order dated 10.04.2012 at Annexure-A and replace it by the words "lockout" of the factory by the management.
3. Facts are that the petitioner is a registered company under the Companies Act and the factory located at Bangalore was manufacturing the biscuits, confectionary and printing (wrappers). The factory had 259 -4- permanent workmen and had recognized respondent No.2- trade union for the purpose of collective bargaining. It appears that respondent No.2 submitted a fresh charter of demand, on 17.08.2011, the Vice President of respondent No.2-Union one Hanumappa was kept under suspension pending enquiry for the charges of abusing and threatening the personnel officer and on the same day, the office bearers entered the production shop floor and caused extensive damage to the products in protest against the suspension of the Vice President. The petitioner-management approached the Civil Court restraining the defendants (workmen) from threatening, intimidating and harassing the employees within the premises of the factory compound and several other reliefs. The Civil Court passed an order restraining the defendants from causing any damage to the property, restrained the defendants from threatening, intimidating and harassing the employees. However, the defendants were permitted to hold demonstration in a peaceful and non- violent manner in the shed already put up by them abutting -5- the compound wall. The management filed MFA No.1642/2012 and this Court observed that "from 17.08.2011 onwards the workmen after entering the factory by marking attendance, did not start the work but remained inside the factory upto 20.08.2011" since the production stopped abruptly without following SOP, there was a serious safety threat which was lying on production line.
4. The management had a meeting with the President of the Union in the presence of the office bearers and the union did not change their stand. The management thought it appropriate that the workmen should give an undertaking as there was a serious threat to food safety, a notice was displayed to the effect that the workman before reporting for duty should give undertaking in the format. Out of 257 workmen, 57 workmen reported to duty by signing individual undertaking.
5. The Civil Court granted temporary injunction as stated supra and in spite of restraining the defendants, and -6- clarifying to the government about continuous strike which was supported by a Court order, the Government referred the following points for adjudication at Annexures-O and P, which read as under:
Annexure-O:
"DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁzÀ ªÉÄB ¥Á¯Éð ¥ÁæqÀPïÖ ¥Éæ Ê.° ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ F ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄĵÀÌgÀ ºÀÆrgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ GAmÁzÀ PÉÊUÁjPÁ «ªÁzÀ. EªÀgÀ ªÀÄzsÉå F PɼÀPÀAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À §UÉÎ PÉÊUÁjPÁ «ªÁzÀ«gÀĪÀÅzÁV PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £ÁåAiÀÄ ¤tðAiÀÄPÁÌV «ªÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ CUÀvÀåªÉAzÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ¥ÀjUÀt¹zÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ PÉÊUÁjPÁ «ªÁzÀUÀ¼À C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1947 (PÉÃAzÁæ¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 14, 1947) gÀ 10£Éà ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ (1) £Éà G¥À-¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ (¹)/(r) RAqÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀzÀj «ªÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀÄ ¤tðAiÀÄPÁÌV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÉƼÀUÁV wÃ¥Àð£ÀÄß M¦à¸À®Ä 1£Éà C¥ÀgÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ E°èUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÉ.
ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄB-
B-
1. DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁzÀ ªÉÄB ¥Á¯Éð ¥ÁæqÀPïÖ ¥Éæ Ê.° ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ, ¥Á¯Éð ªÀPÀðgïì AiÀÄƤAiÀÄ£ï, £ÀA.25, 4£Éà CqÀØgÀ¸ÉÛ, ¨sÉÊgÀ¥Àà ¯ÉÃOmï, £ÁUÀ±ÉnÖºÀ½î ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæ¹zÀAvÉ DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÀÄ ¥Á¯Éð ¥ÁæqÀPïÖ ¥Éæ Ê.°, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀB 22-08-2011 jAzÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ ©ÃUÀªÀÄÄzÉæ WÀÉÆö¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄävÀªÉÃ?-7-
2. ¥Á¯Éð ªÀPÀðgïì AiÀÄƤAiÀÄ£ï, £ÀA.23, 4£Éà CqÀØgÀ¸ÉÛ, ¨sÉÊgÀ¥Àà ¯ÉÃOmï, £ÁUÀ±ÉnÖºÀ½î ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀB 22-08-2011 jAzÀ CªÀiÁ£ÀwÛzÀ°ènÖgÀĪÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉÃrPÉ ElÄÖ ªÀÄĵÀÌgÀ £ÀqɸÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄävÀªÉÃ?
3. ºÁVzÀÝ°è, ¸ÀzÀj PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÉÌ CºÀðgÀÄ?"
Annexure-P:
"DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁzÀ ªÉÄB ¥Á¯Éð ¥ÁæqÀPïÖ ¥Éæ Ê.° ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀB 22-8-2011 gÀAzÀÄ ©ÃUÀªÀÄÄzÉæ WÀÉÆö¹ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 300PÀÆÌ ºÉZÀÄÑ PÁ«ÄðPÀjUÉ PÉ®¸À ¤gÁPÀj¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ GAmÁzÀ PÉÊUÁjPÁ «ªÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀÄ ¤tðAiÀÄPÁÌV 1£Éà C¥ÀgÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀ £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, E°èUÉ ¸ÀPÁðj DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉåB PÁE 175 LrJA 2012, ¢£ÁAPÀB 10-04-2012gÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁzÀ ªÉÄB ¥Á¯Éð ¥ÁæqÀPïÖ ¥Éæ Ê.°, vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀB 22-8-2011 gÀAzÀÄ ©ÃUÀªÀÄÄzÉæ WÀÉÆö¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ GAmÁzÀ PÉÊUÁjPÁ «ªÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄß ±ÁAwAiÀÄÄvÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ËºÁzÀðvɬÄAzÀ PÉÊUÁjPÁ ±ÁAwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÁ¥ÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ zÀȶ֬ÄAzÀ PÉÊUÁjPÁ «ªÁzÀUÀ¼À PÁAiÉÄÝ 1947 PÀ®A 10 (3) gÀrAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹, vÀPÀët¢AzÀ ZÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ«ÄðPÀ ªÀUÀðzÀªÀjUÉ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ µÀgÀwÛUÉƼÀî¥ÀlÄÖ ©ÃUÀªÀÄÄzÉæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸À®Ä DzÉò¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
1. ¸ÀzÀj PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄ PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀÄ ¸ÁܪÀgÀzÀ GvÁàzÀ£À ZÀlĪÀnPÉUÀ½UÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zsÀPÉÌAiÀiÁUÀzÀAvÉ PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.-8-
2. DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÀÄ ©ÃUÀªÀÄÄzÉæ vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¹zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ J¯Áè PÁ«ÄPÀjUÀÆ PÉ®¸À ¤ÃqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
3. PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÁdgÁzÁUÀ DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ ªÀÄÄZÀѽPÉ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ «£ÀB AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀƪÀð¨sÁ« µÀgÀvÀÛ£ÀÄß «¢ü¸ÀzÉà PÁ«ÄðPÀjUÉ PÉ®¸À ¤ÃqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ."
(emphasis supplied) In the preamble of the order of reference, the appropriate Government has formed the opinion that the dispute arose because of the strike resorted to by the workmen and therefore, the same requires adjudication.
a. Whether the management was justified in declaring lockout from 22.08.2011 as alleged by the trade union?
b. Whether the Parle Workers union was justified in demanding to take back the striking workers who were under suspension?
6. Respondent No.1-government has also passed another order dated 10.04.2012 under Section 10(3) of the ID Act assuming that the management has declared lockout -9- and hence, prohibited, purported lockout. In the produced waste biscuits to the extent of 25%, the absenteeism rate was 33% and there was a total non-cooperation on shop floor.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Civil Court had restrained the workmen of the union from holding strike and the said order was modified by this Court on demonstrating of strike within a radius of 50 meters of the factory premises was prohibited. It is the contention of the petitioner that the workmen continued their stay in strike in the premises and the government though framed an opinion that there is a strike without even considering the nature of dispute mechanically states that it is a lockout. Learned counsel would contend that at no point of time, the petitioner-management had declared lockout. Learned counsel would bring to the notice of this Court during the pendency of this writ petition, the management filed an application under Section 25(O) (1) of the ID Act seeking permission for the closure of the factory, as it experienced
- 10 -
continual labour unrest, production loss. Learned counsel would contend that the writ petition on the earlier occasion was allowed, holding that the impugned orders at Annexures-O and P were not justified and respondent No.2 filed a review petition seeking to review the order on the technical ground that the respondent was not heard at the time of passing the final order and the review petition came to be allowed.
8. Pursuant to the recall of the order in the writ petition, respondent No.2-union has filed connected writ petition seeking to delete the impugned portion, i.e., strike mentioned in the preamble, on the ground that it is a technical mistake. Learned counsel would submit that the government has accorded approval to close the factory w.e.f. 09.09.2013 and the factory has been closed and all the benefits and compensation, including statutory benefits, have been settled.
- 11 -
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-union would contend that the order of reference containing issue No.2 is erroneously stated as 'strike' and the industrial dispute is regarding 'lockout'.
10. The impugned order at Annexure-O refers to the fact that there was a strike and the orders before the Civil Court and this Court would clearly indicate that there was a strike in the factory premises from 22.08.2011 and the Government came to the conclusion that the management has declared lockout was contrary to the order passed by the Civil Court and this Court. The fact remains that the petitioner-management has closed the factory w.e.f. 09.09.2013 and assailing the said order, the respondent- union has preferred writ petition before this Court which is pending consideration. The State Government cannot mechanically refer the matter for dispute unless it forms an opinion as to whether there was a dispute, which requires to be referred for adjudication and having framed an opinion of strike, the reference of adjudication in declaring lockout is
- 12 -
highly unsustainable and the contention of the union that 'strike' mentioned is technical mistake is highly unsustainable and without any basis. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER i. W.P. No.12702/2012 filed by the petitioner-
management is hereby allowed.
ii. W.P. No.28183/2013 filed by the respondent-
union is hereby dismissed.
ii. The impugned orders passed by respondent No.1 at Annexures-O and P dated 10.04.2012 is hereby set aside.
SD/-
JUDGE MBM