Karnataka High Court
Msk Mills, A Unit Of Ntc (Apkk And M) ... vs Raja Patel S/O Saheb Patel And Ors on 22 April, 2016
Bench: Ashok B Hinchigeri, S.Sujatha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2016
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
WRIT APPEAL No. 200167/2015 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
MSK Mills,
A Unit of NTC (APKK & M) Ltd.,
Kalaburagi
Reptd. By its Deputy Manager (HR).
...Appellant
(By Sri Ashok Patil & Krupa Sagar Patil, Advocates)
AND:
1. Raja Patel
S/o Saheb Patel
Age: Major Occ:
R/o Madina Garden Road,
Girni Mohella Jeelanabad,
Behind MSK Mills
Kalaburagi - 580 103.
2. Neelakanth Mapanna Harijanwada,
Age: Major, Occ:
R/o Hirapur, Post: Hirapur,
Tq. & Dist: Kalaburagi.
2
3. Kallappa Jetteppa
Age: Major, Occ:
R/o New Harijanwada, Hirapur,
Post: Hirapur,
Tq & Dist: Kalaburagi.
4. Gurappa Shankrappa
Age: Major, Occ:
Kabbalgera Oni
Gobbur (B) Village,
Tq: Afzalpur, Dist: Kalaburagi.
5. Rukkawwa Golepa Harijanwada
Age: Major, Occ:
R/o Jargundi, Post: Savalgi,
Tq & Dist: Kalaburagi.
6. Shantabai Mareappa,
Age: Major, Occ:
R/o Old Harijanawada,
Hirapur, Post: Hirapur
Tq& Dist: Kalaburagi.
7. Laxmibai Baswaraj
Age: Major, Occ:
R/o Basava Nagar, MSK Mill Road,
Kalaburagi.
8. Kallawwa Malleshappa
Age: Major, Occ:
R/o Basava Nagar, MSK Mill Road,
Kalaburagi.
9. Ranawwa Bhimasha
Age: Major, Occ:
Post Sindgi (B),
Tq.& Dist: Kalaburagi.
10. Sundrabai
W/o Late Revansiddappa,
3
Age: Major, Occ:
R/o Basava Nagar, MSK Mill Road,
Kalaburagi,
11. Ratnabai Ramchandra,
Age: Major, Occ:
R/o Sindgi (B) village
Post Sindgi (B)
Tq. & Dist: Kalaburagi.
12. Ranawwa Chaneramappa,
Age: Major, Occ:
R/o Waddargalli, Sindgi (B) Village
Tq. & Dist: Kalaburagi.
13. Nagendra Sidram Harijan Wada,
Age: Major, Occ:
R/o Sindgi (B) Village
Tq. & Dist: Kalaburagi.
14. Shanawwa Shantappa,
Age: Major,
R/o Hjarijanwada Sindgi (B) Village,
Tq. & Dist: Kalaburagi.
... Respondents
(By Sri A.M. Patil, Advocate for R1, R3 to R8, R10 & R12 to
R14; Appeal stands abated as against R2, R9 & R11)
This Writ Appeal is filed u/s. 4 of the Karnataka High
Court Act, pleased to set aside the impugned order, dated
24.03.2015, passed by the learned single Judge and allow
the writ bearing W.P No. 4818 of 2007 & 202351-363 of
2015, filed by the appellant herein & grant such other relief
which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to grant in the
circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.
This Writ Appeal coming on for orders this day,
ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI J, delivered the following:
4
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the learned Single Judge's order, dated 24.03.2015 passed in W.P.Nos.4818/2007 and 202351-363/2015.
2. The respondents had filed an application No.96/2003 and other connected applications before the Labour Court, Gulbarga, seeking the computation of the monetary benefits payable by the establishment of the appellant. The said applications were allowed by the Labour Court by its order, dated 18.01.2007 (Annexure-A). The respondents were not paid wages from 01.07.1997 till the closure of the Mill on 15.04.2002. They were extended the benefit of the Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme (MVRS) which they opted for and under which they were relieved. However, MVRS was calculated @ Rs.20/- per day by treating the respondent-workmen as temporary employees. As they were the permanent employees, the 5 Labour Court granted the relief taking into account the wages of the permanent employees at Rs.108/- a day. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his order, dated 24.03.2015.
3. Sri Ashok Patil, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent-workmen were given the financial benefits based on the MVRS, which they had accepted. He submits that the Industrial Disputes Act has no application for the respondents, as they were no more in the services of the appellant's Establishment. He submits that the proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, are virtually in the nature of the execution proceedings and that therefore the computation of the monetary benefits as is done by the Labour Court is not permissible.
4. Sri A.M.Patil, learned counsel for the respondents submits that they never agreed to treat their wages as 6 Rs.20/- a day. He further submits that the appellant has already given the gratuity calculating the wages of the respondents at Rs.108/- a day.
5. That the respondents were the workmen in the Establishment of the appellant is not in dispute. The dispute pertains to the period during which they were in the services of the appellant's Establishment. Therefore the appellant cannot contend with any rate of success that the Industrial Disputes Act has no application for the respondents.
6. There is no doubt that the respondents accepted the MVRS, but they have not accepted the computation of the amounts taking their daily wages as Rs.20/-. It is not in dispute that the respondents' services were regularized between 1997 and 1999. The Labour Court has therefore computed the amounts as per the their entitlement. We do not see any violation of Section 33- C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. We find the 7 Labour Court's order to be well-reasoned. The learned Single Judge has therefore rightly dismissed the writ petition.
7. We do not see any iota of scope for our interference in the matter.
8. This appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE msr