Karnataka High Court
The Management Of M/S. Indo Nissin Foods ... vs The Employees Of M/S Indo Nissin Foods ... on 13 October, 2023
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:37458
WP No. 25552 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.25552 OF 2022 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S. INDO NISSIN FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY/DIRECTOR
MR. HIDEFUMI KAWAKITA,
HAVING REGISTERED ADDRESS AT
NO.1102, 11TH FLOOR RAHEJA TOWERS,
WEST WING, M.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
ALSO AT
3RD FLOOR, SKAV, 909, 9/1,
LAVELLE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N
Location: HIGH AND
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
NO.18, A-2, 2ND ROAD,
JIGANI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.
COMPANY REGISTERED
UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DEEPAK BHASKAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE EMPLOYEES OF M/S INDO NISSIN
FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,
THROUGH ITS OFFICER BEARERS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:37458
WP No. 25552 of 2022
MR. K.M.RAVINDRA AND YATHEESH.B.M.,
HAVING OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR,
SKAV, 909/9/1, LAVELLE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
ALSO AT
NO.18, A-2, 2ND ROAD,
JIGANI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 105.
2. THE OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL
LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS,
THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE
LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
KARMIKA BHAVANA,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 029.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH ITS LABOUR DEPARTMENT,
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HAVING OFFICE AT NOS.206 & 207,
2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.K.NAGABHUSHANA., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. M.SRINIVAS KUMAR., HCGP FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:37458
WP No. 25552 of 2022
ORDER
Sri.Deepak Bhaskar., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Nagabhushana.H.K., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.M.Srinivas Kumar., learned HCGP for respondents 2 & 3 have appeared in person.
2. The petitioner Company was incorporated on 9th August 1988 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Company was constrained to close its factory with effect from 02.06.2022. A report was issued by the Factory Inspector upon the closure of the said factory indicated that thirty-two workmen were employed at the said factory prior to its closure with effect from 02.06.2022. Notice of conciliation was issued upon the Company on 06.06.2022 by the second respondent. After the representation by a Trade Union named Indo Nissin Foods Private Limited Workers Union (CITU) - Unit of B.S.I.W.U was made before the second respondent. Some of the Company's workmen adopted disruptive measures to prevent the Company from giving effect to its intention to close the factory premises.
It is stated that the disruptive measures left the Company with no option other than to approach the jurisdictional Police -4- NC: 2023:KHC:37458 WP No. 25552 of 2022 and seek safety of their personnel and property. A non- cognizable report was registered as NCR No.430/2000/2022 dated:09.06.2022. It is said that the first respondent - the Employees of M/s.Indo Nissin Foods Private Limited is wholly new and unrecognized Union claiming to represent the interest of some disgruntled workmen previously employed with the Company, instituted a suit before the I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal in O.S.No.311/2022.
The Government under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act refused to refer any purported dispute for adjudication vide endorsement dated:21.07.2022. The first respondent filed IDC bearing No.22/2022 against the petitioner before the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural. The Court issued summons to the petitioner in ID No.22/2022. Hence, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:37458 WP No. 25552 of 2022
4. The principal ground on which this Court is asked to quash the proceedings on the file of I Addl. District & Sessions Court, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru in I.D.No.22/2022 is that under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 an individual workman may apply to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute and the Union is not permitted to present an application under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
5. Sri.Nagabhushana.H.K., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.M.Srinivas Kumar., learned HCGP for respondents 2 & 3 do not dispute the proposition of law.
6. Suffice it to note that under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, the individual workman concerned may, within six months from the date of communication to him of the order of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination or the date of commencement of Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987, whichever is later, apply, in the prescribed manner, to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute and the Labour Court shall dispose of such application in the same manner as a dispute referred under sub-section 1.
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:37458 WP No. 25552 of 2022 The application under Section 10(4A) R/w Section 2K of the Industrial Disputes Act is furnished along with this Writ Petition and the same is at Annexure-A. A perusal of the same would reveal that the Union has filed the application under Section 10(4A) R/w Section 2K of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is relevant to note that under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, it is only the individual workman who may file an application for adjudication of the dispute, but not the Union. Hence, the application filed by the Union under Section 10(4A) R/w Section 2K of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable. Hence, the proceedings before the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed.
7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The proceedings before the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in I.D.No.22/2022 is quashed.
8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2