Dismissed

The Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd. v. Engineering and General Workers Union

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2023WA/403/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by an establishment challenging a Single Judge's refusal to interfere with an Industrial Tribunal's award. The Court rejected the appeal in limine, holding it lacked maintainability under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act as the Single Judge acted under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was rejected in limine and dismissed as not maintainable.

The Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:36527-DB WA No. 403 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^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. 403 OF 2023 (L-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE MYSORE ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES LTD (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT TUMKUR ROAD, P.B. NO. 2221, YESWANTHAPUR, BANGALORE – 560 022. REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. MURALIDHAR H M.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

ENGINEERING AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION, NO.2, MILL CORNER, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE – 560 003. …RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.02.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE ON IN WP No-3788/2012 (L-RES) CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE AWARD DATED 03.12.2011 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BANGALORE IN I.D. No-5/2002 TOGETHER WITH COSTS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEM FIT TO PASS ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:36527-DB WA No. 403 of 2023

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This intra - Court appeal seeks to lay a challenge to a

¶21

learned Single Judge’s order dated 23.02.2023 whereby, the case in W.P No.3788/2012 (S-RES) filed by the appellant herein calling in question the Industrial Tribunal’s award dated 03.12.2011 passed in I.D.No.5/2000 in favour of the Trade Union of the workman, has been negatived.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contends that the notification under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 is sine qua non for invoking the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; therefore, without such a notification the respondent-Trade Union was not justified in complaining to the Industrial Tribunal and the said Tribunal grossly had fallen in error in passing the award without confidence. He hastens to add that this aspect of

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:36527-DB WA No. 403 of 2023

¶24

the matter having not been properly considered by the

¶25

learned Single Judge, his order is liable to be voided.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶27

appellant, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning on which the impugned order has been structured. The learned Single Judge at para 20 of the judgment had framed as many as four questions

¶28

and the first of them reads as under:-

¶29

“20.1. Whether a notification under Section 10(1) of CLRA is a pre-requisite for the Industrial tribunal to have jurisdiction to decide the matter relating to reinstatement, regularization or services of contract labour?”

¶30

Having referred to several decisions of the Apex

¶31

Court cited at the Bar, learned Judge has answered the above question in the negative. He has specifically recorded a finding that the appellant establishment was not registered as an entity under Sections 7 and 12 of 1970 Act and that whatever arguable agreement was there, was only false and sham and that it was created as

¶32

a camouflage. He has also noted that the appellant

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:36527-DB WA No. 403 of 2023

¶34

management has not produced a copy of the same on record. This finding has been recorded affirming a similar finding of the Industrial Tribunal that was well founded. That being the position, there was no reason to doubt the existence of vinculum juris of employer-employee between the appellant-management and the members of respondent-Trade Union.

¶35

There is yet another reason for us not to interfere in the matter: a Seven Judge Bench decision of this Court in Tammanna vs. Ms.Renuka, ILR 2009 KAR 1207 has held that there lies no appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 when the impugned order has been made by the Single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the other provision namely, Article 226 having been ornamentally employed in the pleadings of the appellant. This view also gains support from the observations in Caparo Engineering

¶36

India Limited vs. Ummed Singh Lodhi, 2021 SCC

¶37

Online 973 , wherein paragraph 43 reads as under:-

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:36527-DB WA No. 403 of 2023

¶39

“43. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant that the learned Single Judge of the High Court wrongly treated the petition(s) under Article 227 and as such the learned Single Judge ought to have treated the petition(s) under Article 226, therefore, the writ appeal before the learned Single Judge would have been maintainable, is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that before the learned Single Judge in the cause title specifically Article 227 has been mentioned. Even in prayer clause, no writ of certiorari is sought. The prayer is simply to quash and set aside the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court and, therefore, in the fact situation, the Division Bench has rightly dismissed the writ appeal as not maintainable.”

¶40

No other contention on the merits of the matter

¶41

was advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the

¶42

appellant and that he is more than justified in not advancing one, when the maintainability of the appeal itself was at crisis. This apart, the learned Single Judge has duly considered the other contentions which the Industrial Tribunal has considered and concurred with the same.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:36527-DB WA No. 403 of 2023

¶45

In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid

¶46

of merits is liable to be and accordingly is rejected in limine. Registry to send a copy of this order by speed post

¶47

to the respondent immediately.

¶48

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶49