Dismissed

Pralhad B Kulkarni v. M/S.Godrej Agrovet Ltd.

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2022WP/106364/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Labour Court order dismissing an industrial dispute petition alleging illegal termination was dismissed. The High Court upheld the finding that the petitioner, a sales officer, did not qualify as a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's prayer to quash the impugned order dismissing the industrial dispute petition was denied.

Pralhad B Kulkarni Vs M/S.Godrej Agrovet Ltd. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 106364 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 106364 OF 2014 (L-TER)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PRALHAD B KULKARNI AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC :NIL R/O.MIG -276, III MAIN, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SURESH N KINI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

M/S.GODREJ AGROVET LTD., PHIROZ SHAH NAGAR, EASTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, VIKHROLI (E), MUMBAI-400079. REP.BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

¶13

THE GENERAL MANAGER

¶14

John Doe

¶15

Digitally signed by John Doe

¶16

GODREJ AGROVET LTD., NO. 497 HTM LAYOUT, 5TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN, V. V NAGAR, R T NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560032.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT MANAGER GODREJ AGROVET LTD., (HUBLI UNIT) C/O. AIMS FEEDS PVT LTD, 57A AND 58A, TARIHAL INDUSTRIAL AREA, TARIHAL, HUBLI-580026.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.12.2013 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, HUBLI DISMISSING K.I.D.NO.57/2012 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAME.

¶21

¶22

WP No. 106364 of 2014

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

¶24

The petitioner claiming that when he was working as sales Officer in the respondent Company was terminated illegally and registered a dispute under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Dispute (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987. The respondent management entered appearance and filed statement of objections interalia contending that the dispute raised by the petitioner is not maintainable, since the petitioner who was working as sales officer does not fall under the definition of workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.The Labour Court after recording the evidence of the workman and the management recorded categorical finding stating that though the termination of the petitioner is illegal, however, the dispute raised by him is not maintainable, since he does not fall under the definition of ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act, 1947. Taking exception of the same this petition is filed.

¶25

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶26

submits that the Labour Court without framing an issue as

¶27

¶28

WP No. 106364 of 2014

¶29

to whether the petitioner is a workman or not was not justified in holding that the petitioner is not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. He further submits that as on the date when he was terminated, the petitioner was working as store in-charge who comes under the definition of workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947.

¶30

K.Kasthuri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-management submits that the petitioner was terminated for not obeying the order transferring him to Bangalore and the Labour Court after examining the evidence and record has rightly held that the petitioner who was working as sales officer does not fall under the definition of workmen as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act, 1947. Hence, he submits that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court does not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶32

learned counsel for the parties.

¶33

¶34

WP No. 106364 of 2014

¶35

In the claim petition, the petitioner has claimed

¶36

that when he was working as sales promotion officer was terminated illegally. The petitioner having claimed that he was working as sales officer cannot contend that the Labour Court has not framed an issue as to whether the petitioner fall under definition of ‘workman’ or not. Admittedly, the sales officer does not fall under the definition of workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act, 1947. Hence, submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the Labour Court without framing the issue with regard to whether the petitioner is workman or not is not acceptable.

¶37

He further contended that when he was

¶38

terminated illegally, he was working as store in-charge and as such he comes under the definition of workman. However, no material is placed before the Labour Court to substantiate his claim that the he was working as store incharge as on the date when he was terminated illegally. The finding recorded by the Labour Court is on the basis of evidence in record and in the absence of any illegality or arbitrariness, the finding recorded by the tribunal cannot

¶39

¶40

WP No. 106364 of 2014

¶41

be interfered under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

¶42

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

Writ petition stands dismissed.

¶45

SD/JUDGE

¶46

Pralhad B Kulkarni v. M/S.Godrej Agrovet Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pralhad B Kulkarni v. M/S.Godrej Agrovet Ltd.

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

Yallareddeppa S/O Eshwarappa Madnoor Vs the Acb Police by Ballari Police Station Ballari

Shri. Fakkiresh S/O Veerappa Baligar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Chandrashekar S/O. Sharanapap Neeralagi Vs Vadeyar Sreedhar S/O Rohith Swamy

Railway Muslim Employees Vs the State of Karnataka

Sandip S/O. Pundalik Yalgukar Vs Staff Selection Commission

Ravinder Singh Atter Vs the State of Karnataka