Karnataka High Court
M/S Divgi Metal Wares Employees ... vs M/S Divgi Metal Wares Ltd on 2 February, 2009
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
BATE!) 11113 ms mm DAY or Irmnxuamvgjadas
i'RE8ENT
mm Homsnn: MR.ws'rIQ$,_v " "
fie'.
THE HOIPBLE MEJUSTIGE Lfm;Ra' " 4' g
WRIT APPE2'{L' ~1§o.847~7
W P No.3 1808/2{}03__&V:A§V_ i?'.._No.7993_of,.§0O6(L)
LN w.A.no.s77/2ooaX'f% '
M/s.Divgi . J
Empiayscs Asfmgiiaiifizxz,
Now r¢pre$$nt;ed"h§z is President,
"N¢jjm*.%_Cox:1pm;.nd, Banavasi Road,
-sirsj, .z§.:<f~5s1.%%4--0%1. ....APPE*LLAN'E'
~. and Sri.Rav& Siiegde, Advs.)
L A N E.__
1 .»M/s.Ij1«; g5 Meta} Wares Ltd.,
-. _ 'Sjgtsi, 'Tfigpresented by its
Sri.P€.N.Div@',
Efavigzg its mgstcred 0ffiC:t3,
* ""Afti_,1'J{3.9--A, Erandavana Kama Read,
and Sranch Ofiice
L . VA " 'At Banavasi Road,
M' Sirsi, N.K.~581 401.
W
4.»-
' '.Bax2ava1siRdad, Sirsi).
2. The Certifying Oflicer
And the: Deputy Labour
Commissiener, Beigaum
{)i$tri<:t: Belgaum.
(By Sri.B.Padmara3aiah,' Sr. for;' '7 ' A 1
M] s.Vijayak1zmar Assts. fdr 1
Sr:i..C.S.Pati1, Aavmor R2) "
This Writ appeal is-- VII' v_ <i>A'I'" :li<~: Kamataka
High Cour: Ac§i.1:=r§3»3<iI1gi;_to§:sgé:'t asicicg-.1;h¢'Vjnrder passed in
the Writ petman N}ii.._{§4.8:3()'/20Q..1j(1a'iv:d"20.3.2006.
In w.P.Np_,3 ~ kl E
The Divg M¢:aJ%Wa:é$ E:fip:§yeas
As$ocia1_;ion by its _ "
_ Senegal Secretary; A _
- .V Ekged-abeut 4.5 years,"
': _V3:iVag§'V Ew%Ici:~1i«Ei11§)1oy¢e$
AsSQciati§*>i1,"'Ja.s;11 Nivas,
Mafiglidi,
{Nowjt isv ~Nc1§~'ur Compound
Petitiimsr
_ [= ' (.By"Sri.S.V.Shast1°i and sxmavi Sfiegde, Advs.)
_ " Ev. --fiivafi Metal Weavera Ltd,
Sirsi, by its Chairman,
Banavasi Road,
Sirsi, LLK.
\§"/
. .R:Ef';}'§)I§I}f3_E;Tfi'£s§..4:, 'A {
2. The Certflyiiig Ofiicer and
The Deputy Labour Commissioner,
Beigaum {)istrict, » . ~ = V .
Belgaum. .'.' ReS'pr_)nde:ut$_" v _ '
(By sz-i.B.1:>admara§a1ah,"*."sr;'s:',¢unsez far * A L
M/$.V1jaya1:.umar'Be.1Ina1 Asst.-'-9, Ativsg vfmiw E %
SI'1.C.S.Patfl, AdV'.»jV'Gr R2) _ .
The Writ petitionfiled uz"1de1'e.Az'£ic1es 226' ahd 227
of the Constitution Of".§£1diE1 %p1fa_'9'i1f:"g '13:) quash the
impugned order No.I.D N0.?.'v'v'C/w<._ 'I..D..N0.3/99 and
I.D.No.42/98 dateti 3O,,5~.V0'2-passed '%3y"t§he Industrial
Tribunal vide A_maex_u1'e-LZF 21016. .i;*1e hfansfer is mega}
and r.:0nt1"aIy_. E0 ~Certif1ed_'.-- Staxxdfiig Order dated
3.7.1989 vicie A1)'I1e§{m:e--Eie';;=,e1_"i€i._etc,'
BETWEE!A*¥:.__ 'A »V 1
The Difarigi eAMe'ێ3iv-Wafes ,
-' H ' ..... ..
'i?:ep=rese:1'£e_tfie
M anagi:1g'vDirect;e1'. . Petitioner
(By .v$:r§:'Si'V.Shasm and S1'i.RaviS.Ir{egde, Aevs.)
%
Metal Empkssyees
_ _ Aiéssociatisn, Sirsi,
~ '"Represente:;i by its
" Gexxerai Secretary.
\"\/
£.D.N:;,.9/2002 armrggg/2001 Vida Annexum~--M.
» ;'jE'hV&;s:':%V_'I1%i':::.¥:.T§1i't21fs coming on fer dictating judgment
AA §v'rit appeal is filad by M/s Divgi Metal Wares
E£J._ip}$:§fe€s Assmiatian, (hereinafter referred tok as the
unioxl') against tbs antler datad 29/3/2006
" A' passed by the learrzeé Single Judge in WE'.
2. SI'i..Kamaiakar Helegadde,
Major,
Sirsi,
ijist: Uttara Kannada.
. Sfiflaxnanath G.Najk,
Major,
Sirsi,
Dist. Uttara Kaxmada,
CO
4.Sz'i.Umesh K.Naik,
Majar,
Sirsi,
Dist.Uttara Kannada;~.__ * j Respondent$.
(By SIé.B.Padm§araj;iiaii, _Sr;C33gu:1se1for M/s.Vijayal<};1;ma'1F B<::1rfi_a1 f~'s.s§t'.~"3. Advs. fer R 1 This W .is« under Article 226 of the Coz1s{ituti($1*:,__'(}f vV}ndia'pI'ay_iI1g £0 quash the award dated 28.2.2006 passeciby me Industrial Tribunal, Hubii, in i:<3daTy, V§}Qwda.J, deiivered the fellowingz JUDGM"E1'fT \\\_/ 310.448 10 /2001 dismissing me writ pe'{iti0n meg: 91?4,§yeT., appellant herein and confirming the . 3.3.2005 passed by the S.().A.N0.1/1999 (hereinafter * appellate autllezity') under ";%"§..ejTCtio11. €e. _ bf ma" 1 (Empieyment St:ax1di1"1g§ 'I'I:1vv(¥:"3;;Vv)pe11a.te authority set aside the medifififéfiorx~..(j1'*~p.Ieu1iendments to ciauses }6(b),;_" 2e8{:9:;'}":-"'a;*<1_c1j:« confirmed the remaining made by the cererying dated 30.10.1999 in order N0.SOA/ Correctness 0f the same is < 32;: thiZS;"ik7IT§,§ «appeal.
'v::v4:"'--§?§'.V?:-350.31808/2003 is filed by the Genera} _Sec1'e<ta;*3{ ex' :5tIAr1e trade union chalienging the eommen daied 30.5.2002 passed in I.D.No.2 e/w Le. and I.E.N0.~42/98 passed by the Industria} T Hijbii rejecting the references made by the u U Sta{e Government on the Ixldustriai Biisputee raised by \«-/ the trade unian in respect of transfer of certain ernpioyees of the empieyer/fust respondent.
3. w.P.No.7993 of 2eo6(L) is med Metal Wares Pvt. Ltd., {lmrehlafter ;:'efez'r1c2.d_ v:t;:;. empioyerfi agairzst the award dataéd by the industrial Tribuna}, H1;;.b_}i 'V 220/ 2001 setting aside the 5?'-tI§e'v'b0¥ipemed empimyees ef the above Indust1f§£é§}V'f)is}§§;te§fV ' ' ' »
4. 'I'h:)11ghVV" §¥;'V€1V . heard a1} these matters A:{)g¢§;:r§{;eff,'L"i}:e r§:SaJ:____pf.fi1e writ petitions depends upon '--._ti::.§:V'de;ci:s3;{2xi' would be renéered in the writ appeal. Tiiefeibré; «iéfjg Vfifoceed to consider the writ appeal f1r-st. n , \' 5; " The facts ifl brief am stated as hereunder:
T225 appeiiarfi: is a {raga union regstered under . the provisions 0f inéian Trade Urzians Act, 1996, The firs: I'*é":SpCifld€I}i is a company regstemd under the \/ Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the "
automobile gears. It is governed by the. ~ Employment (Standing Orders) tie' undisputed fact that the en:q;r1oye"r.V_ got the standing orders at AI}1'16}{1,1I'€5-P.;:Vi't:fi'Vf"):I'}1. flhabour Commissioner, who is on 3.97.1989. Clause 20 of eeftifged "tt1e Company relates te reads thus:
...... /V _ employee shail "1iab1eV'i.to transferred at any time ffom'Vf'-._"the._ ' 'uI1it/faetorw office. * VVestabiish1'I:e:itt_'of "the companv located etméwhere 7 _ India or from one ' -V _ dej}a1ftInent"to another within the same unit]fiactoifgr/office/establishment or from one job of sixnilar nature and . ''.., ''e:apé1e_ity to an another gob of same Z and capacity from one job to eziioifller similar job or from one shifl to '~m:-{other shift, provided such a trarzsfer . does not affect his norma} wages. Any V -' refusal to accept a transfer as above wili be treated as miseozzduct as per Rule 31.2.1949."
6. The standing orders Certified by the "eeI"tifyi11g oflieer on 3.7.1989 was subject matter of \w appeal flied by the trade union. The appeilate amhoriiiy rejected the appeal as {$316 barreci Vidfi order dated . 6/4/1996. Thereafter an application was filed modification of certain clauses in the, certifie_(_1- . erders of the em}:-layer before the " " 'V same is registered in SOA/CR-11' affordilig opportunity to fir$t_,:vL"i*c§pofidL¢rxt_V'"lto object t0 the proposed modificafifixé. d£_certaijI;v.c1a{1ses of the certified Standing {jrr1e1§s,.v.3_§;§dé§fV'p«iz1Zflté:<i 30.10.1999 was passed by Gflicer by modifying Certain clausas. Ii1».§G 20 §)€"3I"t3iI1 to transfer, the V. ahpve are orderad to be éeleted fram of the Standing orders as the same are 1:1(i'£. Witll the Rules framed in thg schedule 'Vgf this ..If1§i1;sniai (Emgloymant and Standing} Orciers " R9-46. Therefore, it is held by the certifying effzcer ' the emgiloyer cannct make any such provision to its . '4 Standing Orders which is ded uncier the Act. 12 the impugned order passed by him. It is contended by the learned counsel t;hat_;= assigfing reasons in the impugned..m_'derg H " "
Single Judge afiirmed the order '; 7-I authority.
10. The segmeeecounsel Sri Padmarajajah, who appearfeel employer, sought to justify' O£'d€if_ 'ef Single Judge placing jthe decisions, which are referred few». the- order. The learned Senior also sffong reiianee upen Aifiele 254 of of India ané the Constitution Bench dee:isiozi"ef_"_'»fhe;.Kpex Ceurt in DEEPCHANI} vs. STATE
-01? ii' Peeeperted in Am 1959 SC 648 and another "'..}§eC1$§,QnVV"iI1 M/S.HOECHST PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ._fe'.=8zA. A>I$I{§TI~II33I¥Z vs. STATE 01? BIHAR & omees, reported 'V V Afié 1983 SC 1039 in support ef his Contention that, when there is a direct conflict between the two \m/ 13 provisions of the statute or when one cannoi be obeygé without disobeying the other, the two enacm1oi1i${'nia§'vv., also inconsistent or obedient to each othcif xvitiioziiz» H difsobeymg the other are the circufiiétanoeis to ithéxt there is a cozlflict or repugnancy "
provisions of the Central Act Stfiteénociifieilt. He piaced strong relia;rio=e_ i§I;1¢ndfiénf to the Rule 2-33 in the {staxiding 0r:1ei*;;}iiiiV oégtgm': .ji946, inserting additioiial --.iteii1'$'.'}i3§ith'::.i::: 's:::i;od11le to the Act adding additional V"'}f§e1B,,3VV"IIiéif:tio:£;Voé at items 19A 85 108(4) «ther§:;i§1.VVC§r:;e of ti16...;3r?1r1itions made pertains to unansfer R1,._;i'es:« schedule to the standixig orders reiating to" iIv1£:i§ij:";tj¥iiai1 establishments. Tho same is not xthe model Standing orders fiamad by the "«Staf<:$"~{}oven1m€nt in exercise of its power under Section sub--Se<:ti0n (2) clause (13) of the Act. Thereforao, it is '4 contended that the empioyer has got every right to rogulatfi the service conditions of its employees, which \w/ the parties, the foiiowing quesiions of law wqzffiiie' _ 15 fer our consideration:
(1)
Whether the appeilaxrt had T ' :;_ AA under Section __10{2'}d_ (Employment orders ms: ieéés to seek modifieettiog;.----ef"x:-.C?;.t%§1Se' the certified <§:fde1fs'4v'f:§i"»1e.,,@_iI1ployer and modificatien _V fhe ofiicer to cZ_eie§e1'eer§'ain said clause, and with Section Act?
"of the Certifyixzg Ofiicer V§1eeept;ii'1gVA'£.'§1'e..:_f3r0posed modificatien tn} the ' 'V <;e:"ti'ii'e§1 Sta1:1ding Orders of the employer by . f_I'rade Unicn for deletion of certain W'{}I'dS V * clause No.26 in the Standing C§:.rTflers of the employer is in cenfermity with Section 15 sub~sec:ti0I"; (2) read with Section egg) and Sectien 3(2) of the Ace» Whether the order ef the iearined Single Judge by afiirming the appellate am:11t3rity order is in cenforxnity with Secticarrs 2(g), 3(2) of the Act I'/W Rules frameé by the State \\.\>_/ 16 Government in the absence of _prescription of the entry involéng "
No.11 uncier the gcheduie regaréirigi t1*ga;1"s"f.ér' H of em 10 6:65 of the er;1"l<.-War-' iI1V'4't':ié?: i*uI_e':s V' framed by it not consiiierihg if 111131 wouid be the.sLz.1pstaiiti_a1 que.stip;r§4_{$f ms to be cansidertzd a1§€1..¢«éinsWefé:=:i court in favaur of 'tl1<f: Tf%idE§"Li1ii(i1'3.?'
(iv) What Q_rde:'? _ A» """ "'}'1*i<:§{5.;3f0;£*§.:5ssa;i:i ;'1egai "q"£1éstions are answered in "favour --0f* union fer the following reasonég:
' Emgxioyfma-:13}: (Standing Orders) Act i$ "§ir§§(:V§§ii}sijh§§i;:£ionaI law. It has passed {he tes'£ of '.Ar¥icié Z 1 3.(1.)".of rm Constimiion of India and it is, in VA fazff§ié'.«~..é Tina provisions of ms Act are applicable to the fmst responcient emgaloyer, wlfich has got its awn M% Standirxg Qrders certified Cartifyirzg Ofiicer under the provisions of the Act. \«\v For the purpose of considering the _ contenelons, it would be just _proper"'fe'1*ei_isV"£o " 17
extract certain relevant provisions 'ef _ Sec:'tiof1~ ~ .
'.5'em1;1eve1*'?" _ as ' the "aperepriate Gove::1ment"'v-i.s deI§3t1ed'v'i:?1... Section 2(1)) of the to n:iea:i'et¥1atI4iz1 respect -of iné1::stI:iai.._ 'e_Stabli's}'3I;1eIits under the E';()I'I£f_:i'Ol_ "Gf , L't-he Central Government 5:: £1 Raiiwayedmiriistration or in a majeg_p'm_~t, .g1§§1e"'er'e_i1a-field, the .__Go\;emi111en§:,'««..'%a.1;d'- in.' all other cases, "}?he Sfate Government; Therefore ef.I_fi1fSt_ Iesponrient industriai e;-sf§a':;j_ii:;3i11xie11.1:"e'4:TE':e"State Government is the pr:ia1;e--. Gave ent".
V Act éefines owner of an induetrial estabfishment to which this file _ ' " Act "fe_1*'the' time being applies, and ' E _ ir.1e1udi"n.g--,---:--« * ~ In a factory, any person named vfiijnder [ clause (f) of 5'Lib~--
' seetion(1) of seetien 7, of {he Faeteries Act, 1948 (63 of 1948)], as manager at' the factory;
In any industrial establishment under the eentroi of any department of any Government in India, the authority appointee by such Government in this behaif, or where no autherity is so \w/ 18 appointed, the head of department. ' Section 2(3) defines ''in.duSt;_r1V_'5i1f~.. "
estabiishment" to estahlishmsnt as defined c1a_us'e- .(i.i}_ of section 2 of Pa}/111£~':i"1';1; o::Zf"%'.'é1gi:$'"1'\§5t: V' 1936 etc., V i' " ° As per Secti{£1*2.V '1.'{t) maans prescribed §:s§;-- :fu1es»..madé'byA the appromriate Q'1;_:verf;1111e1it ._u1j1'ci.er the Act. Sectioxz 2(g) 'cie_ifint:$Vo3:ders"
means I'U.l€S'fC13t.}.I1'g_ ti; Iiiattaizfs-'set out in ti)r::Sc=i1e€L\11<: ta t}:ie..A(;t. ' "
Sécfjiaii-'3'.V_deaiSwith sfibmission of draft standing orders "W'..}..iiV1'(V:'3'1:"'3'f'(4'*3'3i:?r.C§'S ..f(>ilows:
" _ 3'._S"y1i:::1iission of draft standing
- .. 0r'(k;rs.»«("1) Wifhin six months from the ciata " '-or; ____ __which this Act becomes ' alppiicable 1:0 an industrial "~ie'::=£éx'i)1ishment, the fimpioyer shall Submvit to the Certifying Ofiicer five 'tifipies of the drafi stanéing orders ' {nfoposeé by him for adaption. in his ' industrial estabiishment.
(2) Provision shall be mada in such draft for every matter set 0111; in the Schedule which may be applicable to the industrial establishment, and where modal standing ordem have bear: prescribed, shall be, so far as is \M/ 23 entry No.11 namely "any other matter regarding transfer" of empleyees of an establishment. Therefore, the reasons assigled by the appeliate autherity V order that the order paseed by the ee1*tifyi__}.f1g" A' without assig1ing the reasens in his _erder, 13.: not "
factually and legally correct.
Ofiicer has rightiy assigmd Eiiejeaeoné in i=1viéA..(;r(f1Ver _i'03.* deletion of the above tgnderlineii-..§9eIj§ioI§ :'v£'hevVfC1ause 20 of the certified €}1jeie1-'VS the empleyer statingitlxat 'vp_ireVi~Sien in the schedule 91" the Act to e3;heV';3._'t)'€;:§'e-- te the standing orders of _ the ..e%;ep1eyer "t<3... tVra1f§.-sfer its employees anywhere in Eneiieew braziehes/urzits. Therefore, the first not have got; such clause regarding IVtraneierveef.'employees eerizifled to its etandeag careers, V' "V~3:~'.?1Af1i[{:'Ts3é iewnet provided in the Schedule to Act: prescribed by the State Gevennnent, which is the appregriaie ' Gevenimzent. The reason aesigmd by the Certifying Officer in his order having regard to the mléisputed fact \M/ 25 Sections 283), 2(6), 2(g) respectively and. definition of "prescribed" 1*/vs? Sectien 15 » clause (1)) of the Act. Section 15(2) ef power upon both Ceneal Go1;__er*:"11i"zeV_I't'1i Government to add er' .ether* the schedule to frame the Ge tee basis of the eenfemnem ef appropriate governmeme of Therefore, the sub1r1%e$ie:e::"e;f'--I fer the appellant Trade reiianee upon the CerzstitL1tien fldgexent of the Supreme Court and _a11o:.£ier: 'cieeisiei1.,_;eferre(i to supra \«E3'§.{1"1 ali fours apijfiGa§;x3'g.£Q,'::f3]C facts situation Paragraph 10 of the 1-1 I) E Supply Company reported in SC 3.471, reads thus:
"Pare. 10: The second aspect ef the matter which is relevant on this point is that the Standing Qrders have te eever the matters specified in the Schedule attached to the Act. Item 13 in the said Scheduie refers to any other matter, which may be prescribed. We have \w/ 27 And relevant portion in para 18 I'€€i(1S..1I]f']:'1':13; ' L. "PARA -- 13 : We do riot f argument is we]1~fou1i;le(E.. A' We_ have"
aiready emphasised the t.V_1".éict t';":at;ut the Act, even in its'-v.__o::iginai~__ to-1:111, intended to zequire'=._the employers to define with "precisio11e the conditions of }e1I1p1o§me:;'tv,t fiflcifii' them. In pursuance Iof 't1--ie" ~.o'i;ject, the Schedule enuznerateqo _1O._A 'items in respect of which Ojrders had to diféfteé V bf: §.l"i€"_z. employers and eiibfmitteti. for1o'j'ee1*tif;eé1tion. Item 11 in the__VSC;huedi§..§:e Vre1'er_s"'i:o . }other matter Whichee «gay When the app;rop:*iate*- adds any item tothe Seheki1,:1e;"theAre1evant question to ask""wo:;1ci" whether it refers to the A.-eo:1ditio11s'Vof etnployment or not. if it » Qdoee, it Woxxld be within the competence A of'=th'e..« approféfiate Government to add 5-och'«..ai:.__itemt Section _ 15(1) confers twitiey " fpowers on the appropriate "=l'GoireTi;':}:}:1ent to make rules to carry out t1';e'p.i11'posed of the Act; and S.15('2) specifies some of the matters enumerated by C15. (a) to (e), in respect AA ll of which rules may be framed." Cement Industries Case.
Vt In fact this ViCW was earlier taken by the jnfiwxent of the Supreme Court in Bztgalket l\\u/ In View of the said 34
19. Acctordingly, W.P.N0.318()8/Q3 u with cost of Rs.5,00G/-- payable by the £0"
Union halding that the transfer] of mega}, bad and contrary Ordars. The Gammon ordéf' dated 30.5.2002 in m.Nos.%{2>j%«~ 'c,?:w.A3;*.§3'§"'«.a nd 42/98 is quashed. W.P.No.79'33.,1f.§6}.i:;§. <i,isfiiS'S;€:§} 'V"wii:1"1 cost of Rs.5,(){)(}/~ paj%abie g;a;,{he "
Sd/-é Sd/-u Iudge