The Central Arecanut And vs The Union Of India on 30 May, 2017

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Central Arecanut And vs The Union Of India on 30 May, 2017

Bench: G. Narendar

                          1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF MAY, 2017

                       BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. NARENDAR

              W. P. No.22810/2017 (L-RES)


BETWEEN:


THE CENTRAL ARECANUT AND
COCOA MARKETING AND PROCESSING
CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED, (CAMPCO)
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
VARANASI TOWERS, MISSION STREET
MANGALURU-575001
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI. SURESH BHANDARI .M.               ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN-SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
    SRI. ARUNA SHYAM .M-ADV)


AND:


1.     THE UNION OF INDIA
       REP BY ITS SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
       NEW DELHI-110001.

2.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REP BY ITS SECRETARY
       LABOUR DEPARTMENT
       4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
       BENGALURU-560001.
                             2



3.   THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
     HASSAN DIVISION
     HASSAN-572301.

4.   THE CENTRAL ARECANUT AND
     COCOA MARKETING AND PROCESSING
     CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED, (CAMPCO)
     EMPLOYEES UNION (BMS)
     VARANASI TOWERS, MISSION STREET
     MANGALURU-575001
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     PRESIDENT/SECRETARY.         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA - AGA FOR R-2 & R-3;
 R4 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
    DATED:30.05.2017)


     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE

KARNATAKA     INDUSTRIAL        EMPLOYMENT    (STANDING

ORDERS)     RULES,   1961       AND   THE     INDUSTRIAL

EMPLOYMENT     (STANDING    ORDERS)    ACT,   1946   AND

AMENDMENT RULES, 2009 ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE

PETITIONER-SOCIETY AND ETC.



     THIS WP COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY, THE

COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                 3


                              ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the conciliation proceedings dated 12.5.2017.

2. It is seen that the dispute referred to for conciliation is with regard to the enhancement of the retirement age pursuant to the Government Notification dated 27.3.2017 whereby the age of superannuation has been increased from 58 to 60 years.

3. Learned Senior counsel would submit that the conciliator could not have passed an order in the nature of an interim direction restraining the petitioner from superannuating the employees who have completed 58 years of age as on 31.5.2017.

4. A perusal of Annexure-A, the record of proceedings impugned herein, would demonstrate that the conciliator has merely opined or rather advised the petitioner not to superannuate any employee before he attains the age of 60.

5. The proceedings impugned are neither in the nature of a direction nor an order. Hence in the considered opinion of the Court, the present writ petition is premature.

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. All contentions are left open.

Sd/-

JUDGE rs

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court