Partly allowed

The Management of M/S Mulberry Silks Ltd. v. Mr M G Chowdappa

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2023WA/393/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the High Court accepted a draft payment for arrears of wages from 2002 to 2003 as filed by the employer, thereby limiting the scope of the challenge to the Labour Court order. The Court upheld the Single Judge's denial of indulgence regarding the specific wage claim but set aside observations implying dismissal and reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Single Judge declining indulgence in the challenge to the Labour Court wage order is upheld; observations on dismissal and reinstatement are set at naught.

The Management of M/S Mulberry Silks Ltd. Vs Mr M G… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:36977-DB WA No. 393 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO. 393 OF 2023 (L-TER)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S MULBERRY SILKS LTD (FORMERLY MULBERRY SILK INTERNATIONAL LTD) NO 251-B, III PHASE, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU 562 158. REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER MR DINESH MATHUR …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S N MURTHY., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ANAND K R.,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

MR M G CHOWDAPPA, S/O SRI N GANGAPPA, C/O SRI J THOMAS, ADIGODANAHALLI, MUTHANALUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU 562 158 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K S SUBRAHMANYA.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶13

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:36977-DB WA No. 393 of 2023

¶14

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-28177/2009 (L-TER) OF THE APPELLANT HEREIN AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE SAID WP.

¶15

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This intra -Court appeal by the Management seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 20.02.2023 entered in its W.P No.28177/2009 (L-TER). The challenge in the petition was the order dated 27.08.2009 passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru whereby, Application No.1/2004 filed by respondent – workman under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, which in its operative portion reads as under:

¶18

“ORDER

¶19

The application filed U/s.33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is allowed. The respondent management is directed to pay the wages due to applicant Chowdappa subsequent to the period of void dismissal i.e from 6.8.2002 upto the end of November 2003 amounting to Rs.70,487.63 ps.”

¶20

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:36977-DB WA No. 393 of 2023

¶21

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant

¶22

seeks to falter the impugned order of the learned Single Judge principally on the ground that a litigant cannot be worse of in his litigation. In support of that, he draws attention of the Court to the operative portion of the impugned order which reads as under:

¶23

“17.1. In view of the discussion held as regards the aforesaid points, the Labour Court having decided the issue by taking note the fact of the workman having been dismissed from service during the pendency of the proceedings before it, there being no permission under 33(2)(b) of I.D.Act which had obtained, no justification having been made as regards the order of dismissal, the Labour court had rightly come to a conclusion that the dismissal was improper and directed the instatement of the workman with backwages.”

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the workman

¶25

vehemently opposes the appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter on the ground that the

¶27

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:36977-DB WA No. 393 of 2023

¶28

appellant who was the writ petitioner could not have been

¶29

worse of in his challenge to the Section 33 C (2) order which as already reproduced above only directed for the payment of a sum of Rs.70,487.63, that has accrued due by way of arrears of wages ‘ from 06.08.2002 upto the end of November 2003 ’. That being the position the observation of the learned Single Judge about the dismissal of the respondent – workman and subsequent reinstatement, etc. could not have been made.

¶30

Learned counsel on record appearing for the petitioner handed a Bank Draft for the amount specified by the Labour Court in its order dated 27.08.2009 and that the same has been accepted by the learned counsel on record appearing for the respondent – workman of course reserving all his contentions and without any prejudice. He is also right in saying that all contentions of the workman be kept open to seek redressal before the appropriate forum.

¶31

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:36977-DB WA No. 393 of 2023

¶32

In the above circumstances, this writ appeal partly succeeds; the impugned order of the learned Single Judge to the extent it declines indulgence in the challenge to the Labour Court order dated 27.08.2009 is upheld and that the other observations about the alleged dismissal & reinstatement of the workman, etc. are set at naught.

Cost made easy.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

Snb/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

The Management of M/S Mulberry Silks Ltd. v. Mr M G Chowdappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of M/S Mulberry Silks Ltd. v. Mr M G Chowdappa

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 Gavisiddaiah Vs Sri Shiva Kumar

Sqd. Ldr. Dr. Praveen Kumar Bourshetty Vs Mrs. Vineetha Thomas

M/S Divyajyothi Vidya Kendra Vs Karnataka Housing Board

Sri.Vinay Gandhi Vs Sri.K.M.Ramesh

Neekunj Todi Vs Sri.R. J Prakashan

Sri. Ramegowda, Vs Sri. Ashok Karnal