Dismissed

M/S Krishi Polymers Private Limtied v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Oct 2012WP/7922/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed writ petitions challenging the State Labour Commissioner's order referring a labour dispute to the Labour Court. The court rejected the petitioners' claim of non-service of notice and a defect in the reference order, finding no legal error warranting interference.

What did the court decide?

The petitions for quashing the order of reference are dismissed; the order of reference stands upheld.

M/S Krishi Polymers Private Limtied Vs the… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B. ADI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOs.7922-7923/2012(L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

1 M/s. KRISHI POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED AND REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.C-184, 2ND STAGE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BANGALORE-560 058 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI.ARUN BHAT.S

¶9

2 M/S SUPARNA PLASTICS PVT LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED AND REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT No.15/1, 2,3 & 16/1, 2,3 ANDHRA HALLI MAIN ROAD, NEAR PEENYA 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 091 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI.ARUN BHAT S

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

( BY SRI. GANESH BHAT Y H, ADV., )

¶12

AND :

¶13

1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

¶14

¶15

SECRETARIAT OF GOVT. OF KARNATAKA VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 REPTD BY ITS SECRETARY

¶16

2 LABOUR OFFICER AND CONCILIATION OFFICER SUB-DIVISION-1, BANGALORE KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 029

¶17

3 MR SHIVANNA, S/O ARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A NO.632, IST MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS, KSRTC LAYOUT, HEROHALLI, V.N.POST, BANGALORE-560 091

¶18

4 Mr. RAJU V, S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 7TH CROSS, MARUTHI NAGAR, ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD, HEGGANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 091

¶19

5 MR SHANTHARAJ G, S/O GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A PARAVATHI NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, LAGGERE, BANGALORE-560 058

¶20

6 MR KANTHARAJA G C, S/O CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A SANJEEVINI NAGAR, PEENYA 2ND STAGE, HEGGANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 058

¶21

7 MR CHINNAPPA S, S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶22

¶23

R/A NO.56, 3RD CROSS, KASTURI BADAVANE, RAJAGOPAL NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 058

¶24

8 MR GANGADHARA G.M, S/O MUDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/A NO.18, 12TH CROSS, ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BALAJI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 058

¶25

9 MR SATHEESHA S/O GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, C/O MARILINGAIAH OMSHAKTHI TEMPLE, 2ND MAIN ROAD, HEGGNAHALLI CROSS, SANJEEVINI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 091

¶26

10 MR SHIVANANJAIAH S/O SHIVARUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, C/O RAJEGOWDA, 3RD CROSS, LAKSHMAN NAGAR, NEAR MOHAN THEATER, HEGGANAHALLI CROSS, BANGALORE-560 091

¶27

11 MR SURESHA K, S/O KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/A NO.78, NEAR GANESH TEMPLE & KTG HOSPITAL, GAJANANA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 058

¶28

12 MR DEVARAJU B, S/O BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/A NO.24, 25, 5TH CROSS, PARVATHI NAGAR, LAGGERE MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 058

¶29

13 MR VEERUPAKSHAIAH, S/O GOVIYAIAH GOVIMATA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶30

¶31

R/A NO.354, NANJUNDAPPA BUILDING, 6TH CROSS, KASTURI BADAVANE, RAJGOPAL NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 058

¶32

...RESPONDENTS

¶33

( BY SRI.JAGADEESH MUNDARGI, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. T.S.ANANTHARAM, ADV., FOR R3 - R13)

¶34

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF REFERENCE DTD.16.9.11 AT ANNEX-A AND B PASSED BY THE R1 BY DECLARING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND INVALID IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETIITONER NO.1 AND 2 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R1 DELETE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 FROM ORDER OF REFERENCE BY ISSUING APPROPRIATE ORDER.CORRIGENDUM TO THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE & ETC.,

¶35

THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Petitioners have called in question the order of reference passed by respondent No.1 dated 16.09.2011

¶38

¶39

produced at Annexures A and B.

¶40

Respondents 3 to 13, through their Union, had filed a claim petition before the Conciliation officer, initially against M/s. Krishi Irrigation Private Limited. However, during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, it was brought to the notice of the Conciliator that the petitioners herein are managing the industry and they are necessary parties. In this regard, notice was issued to the petitioners on 16.06.2011 and the matter was adjourned to 30th June 2011. On the said day, the Conciliation Officer found that, the management was not agreeable for settlement and accordingly, he submitted a failure report, based on which, the State by Annexures A and B had referred the dispute against M/s. Krishi Irrigation Private Limited and also the petitioners herein.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, initially, the claim petition was filed only against the

¶42

¶43

management and not these petitioners. They were sought to be implemented subsequently. However, the order sheet produced at Annexure R3(d) discloses that no notice is served on these petitioners. Without issuing any notice to these petitioners by the Conciliation Officer, reference is now made including against these petitioners.

¶44

On the other hand, Sri Anantharam, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 13 submitted that, the notices were served on the petitioners as per Annexures R3(h) and R3(j). Even otherwise, one of the petitioners has filed a suit in O.S. No.3339/2011 seeking injunction against these respondents.

¶45

Having regard to the same, when there is a refusal of employment by filing a suit for injunction, restraining respondents 3 to 13 from entering into the industry, it is nothing but a failure to resolve the dispute.

¶46

¶47

Apart from that, acknowledgement for having received notice by the petitioners is produced by respondents 3 to 13 along with the objections statement. Even otherwise, the order sheet produced at Annexure R3(d) does not disclose that the petitioners were not served with notice and further, one of the petitioners has already filed a suit for injunction. Having regard to these circumstances, except the technical ground of non-issue of notice before the Conciliation Officer, no other ground is raised.

¶48

Reference is made not only against these

¶49

petitioners but also against M/s.Krishi Irrigation Private Limited.

¶50

If the petitioners have any defence of binding nature of employment or otherwise, it is open to them to raise all the contentions, which are incidental to the reference made by the State.

¶51

¶52

In the circumstances, I do not find any error in

¶53

the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 referring the matter to the Labour Court, which calls for interference.

¶54

Accordingly, the petitions fail and same are dismissed.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

sma

M/S Krishi Polymers Private Limtied v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Krishi Polymers Private Limtied v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Somashekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr N Ramalinge Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Rudramuni Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Atalanta Applied Dynamics Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Feroz Pasha M B Vs the Divisional Controller

A R Malleshappa Vs the Divisional Controller