Dismissed

Sri. C S Mohan v. Nsl Sugars (Tungabhadra) Limited

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2022WA/1147/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the Single Judge's order setting aside an Industrial Tribunal judgment that allowed 188 workmen outside the reference scope to prosecute. The Court held the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate rights of workers not covered by the specific settlement legality reference, noting the closure issue remains in a separate pending petition.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was disposed of; the Single Judge's order permitting the 188 workmen to prosecute the reference was upheld, and the appellants' contentions were rejected.

Sri. C S Mohan Vs Nsl Sugars (Tungabhadra)… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.1147/2021

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. C. S. MOHAN AGED 73 YEARS, PRESIDENT, SUGAR MILL EMPLOYEES UNION, A-158, VIDYANAGAR, KAREKALLAHALLI, GAURIBIDANUR-561 208, CHICKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶11

THE SECRETARY, GSSK OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, GAURIBIDANUR-561 208, CHICKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶12

THE SECRETARY GAURI SUGAR EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION. (SIRIGUPPA SUGARS EMPLOYEES UNION) GAURIBIDANUR -561 208, CHICKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. … APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI C.S.MOHAN, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶14

AND:

¶15

N.S.L. SUGARS (TUNGABHADRA) LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SIRIGUPPA SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD.) NO.60/1, 2ND CROSS, RESIDENCY ROAD,

¶16

¶17

BANGALORE-560 025. REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (LIAISON), SRI H. V. AMARNATH … RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADV. FOR C/R1)

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN W.P. NO.5688/2018 (L-RES) DATED 19.08.2021.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

This intra-court appeal is filed challenging the order dated 19^th August 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.5688/2018 (L-RES).

¶23

Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are:

¶24

The respondent – Sugar Factory remained closed from 14.04.2001 onwards due to financial crisis. As on the said date, there were 381 workmen employed in the said factory. On 18.02.2002, Form-QA was submitted by the factory seeking permission for closure of the factory under Section 25(O) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). In the said

¶25

¶26

application, the total strength of the workmen was mentioned as 446, which included terminated, dismissed, seasonal and temporary workers. Form-QA filed by the factory was rejected on the ground that the copy was not served on the Workers’ Union and the said order was challenged by the respondent factory before this Court in Writ Petition No.27052/2002 which was dismissed by this court on 21.10.2006 with liberty to the factory to file fresh application. The factory filed W.A.No.2184/2006 challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge of this court in W.P.No.27052/2002 and the said writ appeal was allowed on 20.06.2017 and the orders passed by the competent authority rejecting Form-QA submitted by the factory was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the competent authority to consider the Form-QA afresh.

¶27

On 28.09.2007, the State Government once again rejected the request of the factory for permission to close the factory. Thereafter, a review was filed by the factory before the State Government and during the pendency of the review petition, on 02.04.2008 a

¶28

¶29

settlement was arrived between the factory and its 379 workmen out of 381 workmen and payment was made to the said 379 workmen in accordance with the terms of settlement. Out of 381 workmen, the first appellant and another worker had not entered into the settlement. Challenging the said settlement dated 02.04.2008, a petition was filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner raising an industrial dispute with a prayer to declare the settlement as illegal and void. The Assistant Labour Commissioner had submitted a failure report to the Labour Commissioner and the request made by the first appellant herein to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal on the question of validity of the settlement was rejected by the State Government. In the meanwhile, in view of the settlement, the factory had withdrawn the review petition filed by them before the State Government.

¶30

The order of the State Government dated 25.09.2009 rejecting the prayer of the first appellant to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal on the question of validity of settlement was challenged by the

¶31

¶32

first appellant before this court in W.P.No.33702/2009 and the said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 11.02.2011 and the matter was remanded to the State Government for fresh consideration of the request made by the first appellant to refer the dispute for adjudication regarding the settlement dated 02.04.2008 between the factory and 379 workmen. After the remand, the State Government vide its order dated 05.05.2011 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal which was numbered as I.D.No.155/2011. The Industrial Tribunal thereafter issued notice to all the parties and thereafter claim statement and statement of objections, were filed by the first appellant and the respondent factory respectively before the Industrial Tribunal.

¶33

I.A.No.6/2014 was filed by the factory under Section 11 of the Act for closure of the industrial dispute in I.D.No.155/2011 on the ground that the 379 workers, who had received the settlement amount, had not deposited the same. The said application was allowed by the Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 22.02.2014 and the 379 workers were directed to deposit the entire

¶34

¶35

amount received by them towards settlement on or before 29.03.2014. In the said order it was also stated that the question of reference in the dispute was only with regard to the legality of the settlement dated 02.04.2008 and the Industrial Tribunal cannot adjudicate on the validity of closure under Section 25(O) of the Act. The contention urged by the first respondent that there were 567 workers was also rejected and it was clearly stated that the dispute is confined only with regard to the validity of settlement by the factory with 379 workers.

¶36

The order dated 22.02.2014 passed on I.A.No.6/2014 by the Industrial Tribunal was challenged by the first appellant in W.P.No.303/2015 and the learned Single Judge of this court vide order dated 06.07.2015 dismissed the said writ petition and granted one months’ time to the first appellant or all the 379 workmen to deposit the amount received under the settlement. After disposal of W.P.No.303/2015, the Industrial Tribunal vide its order dated 4.11.2017 held that 379 workmen, who had not deposited the amount, were disentitled to continue the reference and the

¶37

¶38

Industrial Tribunal also held that the other 188 workmen, who had not received the compensation, shall prosecute the case. The order dated 4.11.2017 passed by the Industrial Tribunal to the extent it relates to permitting the 188 workmen to prosecute the reference case was challenged by the respondent – factory before this court in W.P.No.5688/2018 and the learned single Judge of this court vide the impugned order has allowed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants who were respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the writ petition have preferred this writ appeal.

¶39

Sri.C.S.Mohan, party-in-person/appellant No.1

¶40

appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the closure of the factory under Section 25(O) of the Act without permission from the State Government is bad in law. He submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the reference order has been modified by the State Government including two more points for consideration and this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. He also submits that the settlement is only between the

¶41

¶42

factory and 379 workers and the Tribunal has rightly held that the remaining 188 workers out of total 567 workers were entitled to prosecute the reference. He submits that the employees of the factory have been fighting the case for the last 20 years and they have not received any payment from the Management. He submits that the reference order passed by the State Government initially was not proper and therefore, the State Government has framed additional questions for reference. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Oswal Agro Furane Limited and Another –vs- Oswal Agro Furane Workers Union and others¹ and the order passed by the Division Bench of this court in Writ Appeal No.3779/2005 dated 12^th December 2011. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Avon

¶43

Services Production Agencies (P) Ltd. –vsIndustrial Tribunal, Haryana and Others² and submitted that the State Government can refer the dispute to the competent authority at any point of time and he also submits that the question for reference can

¶44

1 AIR 2005 SC 1555

¶45

2 (1979) 1 SCC 1

¶46

¶47

also be amended by the State Government at any point of time.

¶48

Per contra, learned senior Counsel

¶49

Sri.K.N.Phanindra appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that this court in W.P.No.303/2015 had held that the Industrial Tribunal shall proceed to hear the dispute only in case the 379 workmen deposit the amount received by them towards settlement. He submits that the question of reference was only with regard to the legality of the settlement arrived between the said 379 workmen and the factory and the legality of the closure of the factory without obtaining orders under Section 25(O) of the Act was not a question of reference before the Industrial Tribunal. He submits that this court while dismissing W.P.No.303/2015 upholding the order dated 22.2.2014 passed by the Industrial Tribunal on I.A.No.6 has observed that if the petitioner or the 379 workmen, default in depositing the amount within the time given, they shall be disentitled to prosecute the reference further. He submits that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go beyond the reference order. In support of his

¶50

¶51

contentions, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukand Ltd. –vsMukand Staff & Officers’ Association³ and State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur –vs- Om Prakash

¶52

Sharma⁴ .

¶53

Learned senior counsel for respondent also submits that during the pendency of W.P.No.5688/2018, the learned single judge of this court on 20.02.2018 recorded the submission of the third appellant that he shall not proceed with the matter before the Industrial Tribunal, granted on interim order of stay of further proceedings before Tribunal and after the said interim order was passed, the State Government has passed a Corrigendum order dated 17.03.2018 adding two more questions of reference and the said Corrigendum order dated 17.03.2018 has been questioned by the respondent–factory before this court in W.P.No.24331/2018 and the operation of the Corrigendum order dated 17.03.2018 has been stayed by the learned single Judge of this court vide interim order

¶54

3 (2004) 10 SCC 460

¶55

4 (2006) 5 SCC 123

¶56

¶57

dated 08.06.2018 which is operating as on this date. He, therefore, submits that, as on the date of disposal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge, the Corrigendum order dated 17.03.2018 was not in force and the additional two questions of reference raised in the Corrigendum order would be subject to the result of W.P.No.24331/2018. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶58

We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the material available on record.

¶59

The material on record would go to show that the request of the first appellant herein to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal on the question of validity of the settlement dated 02.04.2008 arrived between the factory and its 379 workers was initially rejected by the State Government on 25.09.2009 and the said order was questioned by the first appellant herein in W.P.No.33702/2009. This court by its order dated 11.02.2011 vide Annexure-E allowed the said writ petition and remanded the matter to the State

¶60

¶61

Government for re-consideration in accordance with law. Thereafter, the State Government had passed an order dated 05.05.2011 referring the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal with the following points for consideration:

¶62

“1. DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁzÀ ªÉÄ: ¹gÀUÀÄ¥Àà ±ÀÄUÀgïì ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ«ÄPÀ¯ïì, UËj©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄ°è£À PÁ«ÄðPÀgÉ®èjAzÀ DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄªÀgÀÄ DPÀæªÀÄªÁV MqÀA§rPÉUÉ ¸À» ¥ÀqÉ¢zÁÝgÉAzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀ£ÀÄß F PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¥Àæw¤¢ü¸À®àqÀÄªÀ ²æÃ ¹.J¸ï.ªÉÆÃºÀ£ï, CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ, ±ÀÄUÀgïì «Ä¯ïì JA¥Áè¬ÄÃ¸ï AiÀÄÆ¤AiÀÄ£ï (j) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ f.J¸ï.J¸ï.PÉ. D¦ü²ÃAiÀÄ¯ïì CAqï JA¥Áè¬ÄÃ¸ï C¸ÉÆÃ¹AiÉÄÃµÀ£ï (j) UËj©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀgÉ?

¶63

DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁzÀ ªÉÄ: ¹gÀUÀÄ¥Àà ±ÀÄUÀgïì ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ«ÄPÀ¯ïì, UËj©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 02.04.2008gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ M¥ÀàAzÀªÀÅ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀ M¥ÀàAzÀªÀ®èªÉAzÀÄ DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀgÉ?

¶64

PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÉÌ CºÀðgÀÄ?”

¶65

A reading of the aforesaid points for consideration or the

¶66

questions of reference would go to show that the reference was only with regard to the validity of settlement dated 02.04.2008 arrived between the factory and its 379 workemen.

¶67

¶68

In the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, an order was passed on I.A.No.6 filed under Section 11 of the Act directing the 379 workmen to deposit the settlement amount and the said order was confirmed by this court in W.P.No.303/2015. It is relevant to mention here that the Industrial Tribunal while directing the 379 workmen to deposit the settlement amount had observed in the said order that the point for consideration under the reference was only concerning the legality of the settlement dated 2.4.2008 and the Tribunal, therefore, cannot adjudicate on the validity of closure under Section 25(O) of the Act. The contention of the first appellant with regard to the rights of the other workmen who had not entered into settlement was rejected confining the dispute only to the validity of settlement. The said order has been confirmed by this court in W.P.No.303/2015 and this court while disposing of W.P.No.303/2015 by order dated 06.07.2015 has observed that the Industrial Tribunal was right in observing that the issue relating to closure is not

¶69

¶70

connected to the points for consideration, which were referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal.

¶71

After the disposal of W.P.No.303/2015 by this court, the Industrial Tribunal has passed the order dated 4.11.2017 holding that the 379 workmen, who had not deposited the settlement amount pursuant to the orders passed on I.A.No.6 filed by the factory under Section 11 of the Act, were disentitled to prosecute the reference. However, the Tribunal held that the other 188 workmen out of 567, who were not parties to the settlement, were entitled to prosecute the reference. It is this order, which was questioned by the factory before the learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.No.5688/2018 and the learned Single Judge has allowed the said writ petition on the ground that the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 4.11.2017 was not in terms of the directions issued by this court in W.P.No.303/2015 which had attained finality. The learned Single Judge of this court at para-14 of his order has observed as follows:

¶72

“14. Perusal of para No.26, it is crystal clear that issue before the labour Court is only in respect of 379 workers. Therefore, the later portion of the order impugned at Annexure-A

¶73

¶74

is beyond to the directions given at para No.26 in W.P. No.303/2015 dated 6.7.2015. The cited decisions on behalf of the petitioner supports the petitioner’s case in respect of scope of labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is only to the extent of reference. In the present case, the labour Court is required to take note of para No.26 of the order passed in W.P. No.303/2015 and beyond that, scope of the labour Court is curtailed. At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of that Respondent No.1 (President, Sugar Mill Employees Union) who is the petitioner in W.P. No.303/2015 if he is aggrieved in non inclusion of remaining workers in para No.26, he should have resorted in filing writ appeal and he has not chosen to do so and not questioned the validity of the order passed in W.P. No.303/2015 not, thus it has attained finality. The contention of Respondent No.1 that 10 workers have deposited, hence their cases are required to be adjudicated has been taken note of by the Industrial Tribunal in para No.23 and rejected in the order dated 04.11.2017 (Annexure-A).”

¶75

It is under these circumstances, the latter portion of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal insofar as it relates to allowing the other 188 workmen, who have not received any compensation from the factory to prosecute the reference, has been set aside by the learned Single Judge of this court.

¶76

Since the point for consideration in the order of reference was only with regard to the validity of the

¶77

¶78

settlement arrived between the factory and its 379 workmen, we are of the considered view that the Industrial Tribunal was not justified in allowing the other 188 workmen, who had not received the compensation amount, to prosecute the reference case before the Industrial Tribunal. This Court in W.P.No.303/2015 had observed that the issue relating to closure of the factory is not connected with the point for consideration, which has been referred for adjudication and therefore, the Industrial Tribunal was not justified in permitting the remaining 188 workmen to prosecute the reference case.

¶79

The reference of the State Government was only for adjudication regarding legality of the settlement dated 02.04.2008 and no reference was made as to the legality of the closure of factory under Section 25(O) of the Act. The reference was made at the instance of the appellant No.1 herein and with open eyes, he had participated in the proceeding throughout, knowing fully well the points for consideration in the order of reference. It is, therefore, not open for the appellants to now contend in the present proceedings, to adjudicate the

¶80

¶81

rights of the 188 workmen, who allegedly have not entered into any settlement with the respondent-factory or to adjudicate the legality of the closure of factory under Section 25(O) of the Act.

¶82

It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellants that during the pendency of the writ petition, the State Government has passed a Corrigendum order dated 17.03.2018 and two more points for consideration have been included in the reference order. A perusal of the said Government Corrigendum dated 17.03.2018 would go to show that the additional points for consideration referred by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal are as follows:

¶83

“3. Whether the President, Sugar Mills Employees Union GSSK Officials & Employees Association proves that the factory had been closed on 18.02.2002 without obtaining the permission of the Governement under Sec.25(O) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 though 567 workers were working in M/s.Sirguppa Sugars & Chemicals, Gauribidanur &

¶84

4. What relief is to be granted to the workers if the allegations are proved.”

¶85

¶86

Admittedly, the said Corrigendum order dated 17.3.2018 has been challenged by the factory before this court in W.P.No.24331/2018 and the learned single Judge of this court vide order dated 08.06.2018 has stayed the operation of the said Corrigendum, which is in force as on this date. The question with regard to validity of the closure of the factory without obtaining permission from the government under Section 25(O) of the Act is, therefore, subject matter of W.P.No.24331/2018 which is pending consideration before this court.

¶87

The grievance of the 188 workmen out of 567 workmen who had not entered into settlement, therefore, can be adjudicated in the said proceedings and their rights would be subject to the outcome of the said writ petition. Since the question for consideration in the reference before the Industrial Tribunal as on 4.11.2017 was only with regard to the validity of the settlement arrived between the factory and its 379 workers, the Industrial Tribunal was not justified in permitting the 188 workers out of 567 workers, who had not entered into

¶88

¶89

the settlement, to prosecute the reference case. The State Government having realized the same has thereafter issued a Corrigendum order dated 17.3.2018, the validity of which is questioned by the factory in W.P.No.24331/2018.

¶90

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukand Ltd. (supra) has held that the Industrial Tribunal is a creature of the reference and it cannot adjudicate the matters beyond the purview of the dispute referred to it. The said judgment has been subsequently reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (supra) wherein it has been held that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court emanates from the order of reference and does not extend beyond the terms of the reference order and any order passed by the Labour Court in excess of its jurisdiction is liable to be interfered by the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review.

¶91

Under the circumstances, we find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single of this court.

¶92

¶93

The judgments relied upon on behalf of the appellants are not applicable to the facts of the present case and therefore, it will not aid the case of the appellants. It is trite law that the judgments can be relied upon as precedent only if they are applicable to the facts of the case. Though we are in respectful agreement with the law laid down in the judgments referred to on behalf of the appellants, we hold that the said judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶94

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to the validity or otherwise of the subsequent order of reference, which is the subject matter of W.P.No.24331/2018 pending consideration before the learned Single Judge of this court and the contentions of all parties with regard to the validity of said reference order and with regard to the points raised for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal in the said reference order are all left open to be urged before the learned Single Judge.

¶95

The disposal of this Writ Appeal will not come in the way of the remaining 188 workmen out of 567 workmen

¶96

¶97

to seek redressal of their grievances before the

¶98

appropriate forum.

¶99

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of.

¶100

Sd/JUDGE

¶101