High Court allowed a writ petition quashing a Labour Court order that dismissed references without considering a workman's claim under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Impugned Labour Court order dated 23.02.2013 setting aside; labour court directed to consider Section 33(2)(b) application within nine months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.58703/2015 (L - TER)
BETWEEN
SRI R.RAVINDRA S/O LATE RAGHUNATH RAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, FIRST FLOOR, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, TEACHERS LAYOUT ROAD, VIDYARANYANAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 097 REPRESENTED BY RANE ENGINE VALVE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (FORMERLY CALLED AS KAR MOBILES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION)
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LRS.
SMT.UMA RAVINDRA W/O LATE R.RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, FIRST FLOOR, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, TEACHERS LAYOUT ROAD, VIDYARANYANAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 097 REPRESENTED BY RANE ENGINE VALVE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (FORMERLY CALLED AS AKAR MOBILES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION)
2
(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 19.12.2019.)
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI A.J.SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))
AND
THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S RANE ENGINE VALVE LTD., (FORMERLY CALLED AS KAR MOBILES LTD., BEFORE AMALGAMATION) 26, 1ST PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU – 560 058.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MANJUNATHA B., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 23.2.2013 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN REF NO.7/97, APPLN NO.41/1997 & I.D.NO.163/1997 A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH AT ANNEXURE-A ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner in this writ petition has called in
question the order dated 23.02.2013 passed by the I Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Labour Court’ for short) in ref
3
No.7/1997, Application No.41/1997 and I.D.No.163/1997, dismissing the claim of the
petitioner.
referred to as the Workman and the Management.
the petitioner and Sri Manjunatha B., learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
subject writ petition are that, the petitioner – Workman was appointed with the Management as a
4
trainee and was posted as an Assistant for doing the clerical work in the Bond Stores with effect from 27.04.1981. It transpires that the petitioner was further promoted on 23.03.1995 to the cadre of Senior Assistant Grade - 1 and thereafter, as the Senior Assistant Grade – 2, which the petitioner claims to be only a change in nomenclature, but continued to do the same clerical work.
Secretary of the Employees Union on 23.03.1995. The Management on 25.03.1995, transferred the Workman to a field job and re-designated him as Sales Representative on lower pay scale. During this process when the petitioner was working as Sales Representative, the Union in which the Workman was working was dissolved on 29.11.1995, fresh election was conducted and the Workman was elected as the
5
President of the Union but was not allowed to work as
the President in the factory at Bangalore.
6
the pendency of the dispute, the Management in modification of the earlier order of transfer deputed the petitioner to Belgaum in pursuance of which also the petitioner did not report at Belgaum.
from service imposed upon the Workman during the pendency of the dispute in reference No.7/1997 which was referred by the appropriate government challenging the penalty of withholding of two increments. The Workman raised a dispute before the
7
Conciliation Officer against the order of dismissal which also ended in failure and the dispute was referred by the appropriate government to the Labour Court for its adjudication by filing an application which was numbered as I.D.No.163/1997.
8
follows:
“Section 33 : Conditions of service, etc. to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings.
(1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with the standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute or, where there are no such standing orders, in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether express or implied between him and the workman
(a) xxxxxxxxxxxxx
(b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish whether by dismissal or otherwise, that workman:
Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless
9
he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer.”
(emphasis supplied)
The afore-extracted statute, mandates that the Management is required to file an application seeking permission to dismiss an employee during the pendency of a dispute filed by such employee.
10
pendency of dispute before the Labour Court in Ref.No.7/1997. The penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the Workman was also referred by the appropriate government to the Labour Court which is numbered as I.D.No.163/1997, in which the workman filed an application invoking Section 33(2)(b) of the said Act, claiming that the order of dismissal was void as it was contrary to Section 33(2)(b) of the said Act. The Labour Court while considering the action of the Management in dismissing the Workman from service ought to have at the outset considered the application filed by the Workman in terms of Section 33(2)(b) of the said Act.
11
said Act and Industrial Dispute No.163/1997 – challenging the order of dismissal from service, does not bear consideration of the application filed by the Workman in terms of Section 33(2)(b) of the said Act and the same is erroneous and unsustainable.
following:
a. The writ petition is allowed.
b. The common order dated 23.02.2013, of the
Labour Court dismissing all three cases together, i.e., Ref.No.7/1997, Appl.No.41/1997 and I.D.No.163/1997, without considering the application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the said Act, is set aside.
c. The Labour Court is directed to consider the application filed by the Workman under Section 33(2)(b) of the said Act in accordance with law, pass appropriate orders and conclude the disputes referred
12
to it as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within
nine months from the date of its first hearing.
All the contentions of both the parties are kept
open.
Sd/JUDGE
nvj CT:MJ
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Labour Court erred in dismissing the workman's claim challenging dismissal imposed during pendency of a dispute without considering Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Whether an employer must obtain prior permission from the authority before dismissing a workman when a dispute concerning the same workman is pending adjudication.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri R.Ravindra (late) represented by LRS (Smt. Uma Ravindra)
The Management of M/s Rane Engine Valve Ltd.
M. Nagaprasanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
