Dismissed

Venkatesh K v. Heildelberg Cement India Ltd.

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2023WP/22155/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of a Labour Court order refusing to include the petitioner's pre-liquidated service in Mysore Cements Employees Dairy Co-operative Society for VRS benefits calculation, finding no proof of service continuity due to a gap between entities.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Labour Court order upholding the Rs. 1,51,815/- payment under VRS remains unaltered.

Venkatesh K Vs Heildelberg Cement India Ltd. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 22155 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 22155 OF 2012 (L-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

VENKATESH K

¶10

S/O KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT AMMASANDRA HEGGERE ROAD, TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 211

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. R. OM KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

HEILDELBERG CEMENT INDIA LTD.,

¶15

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AMMASANDRA (FORMERLY MYSORE CEMENTS LIMITED) REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 211

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. G. SANJAY, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. D LEELAKRISHNAN., ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS WP FILED PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING IN APPLICATION NO.2/10 ON THE PRL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.4.1.11 IN

¶20

¶21

WP No. 22155 of 2012

¶22

APPLICATION NO.2/10 VIDE ANNEX-A AND MODIFY THE SAID ORDER BY GRANTING THE PAYMENT OF DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,78,185/- TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶23

THIS W.P., COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶26

a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the impugned order dated 04.01.2011 in Application Nos.2/2010 'A; and modify the said order by granting the payment of difference amount of Rs.1,78,185/- to the petitioner.

¶27

b. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondent to pay the wage board difference of Rs.30,000/and all other consequential monetary benefits that others workers have been granted.

¶28

c. directing the respondent management to pay the petitioner cost through out and grant such other reliefs."

¶29

The petitioner-workman claims to have been employed by the Mysore Cements Employees DairyCo-operative Society Limited in the year 1985. The said Society came to be liquidated in the month of

¶30

¶31

WP No. 22155 of 2012

¶32

September, 1997 and thereafter, the petitioner claimed that on 25.06.1999, he was provided a job in Mysore Cements Limited. The said Mysore Cements Limited being in the process of closure, the petitioner opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) in May 2007 as a Badli worker, in pursuance of which certain payments were made.

¶33

The grievance of the petitioner before the Labour Court is that, the period of service of the petitioner at Mysore Cements Employees Dairy Co-operative Society Limited from 1985-1997 has not been taken into account while calculating the benefits payable to the petitioner. It is on that basis, it is contended that the payment which has been made to the petitioner is not correct and that the balance payment of a sum of Rs.2,08,185/- was due.

¶34

The Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the Mysore

¶35

¶36

WP No. 22155 of 2012

¶37

Cements Employees Dairy Co-operative Society Limited having been liquidated in the month of September 1997 and the petitioner being taken as a Badli worker on 27.06.1999 in Mysore Cements Limited, the services rendered in Mysore Cements Employees Dairy-Co-operative Society Limited cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of voluntary retirement service proposed by the Mysore Cement Limited in the year 2007..

¶38

After considering the evidence on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the voluntary retirement scheme having been accepted by the petitioner and the amount received by him, a demand for the additional amount could not have been made. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court seeking for aforesaid reliefs.

¶39

¶40

WP No. 22155 of 2012

¶41

Sri. Om Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that Mysore Cements Employees DairyCo-operative Society Limited is a sister concern of Mysore Cements Limited. The uniform given to workers in both the companies were one and the same. The Company being established in an area where there were no facilities available. The Mysore Cements Employees Dairy-Co-operative Society Limited was established to provide an essential service for the workers in Mysore Cement Limited and as such, the services rendered by the petitioner from the years 1985-1997 ought to have been taken into consideration while calculating the benefits liable to be paid to the petitioner under the voluntary retirement scheme.

¶42

Per contra, Sri. G. Sanjay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Company would submit that the petitioner was taken on service as a Badli worker for

¶43

¶44

WP No. 22155 of 2012

¶45

the first time on 27.06.1999 and it is in pursuance thereof that the calculation of the due amount was made as per the wages last paid prior to the acceptance of the voluntary retirement scheme by the petitioner. He submits that there being no dispute as regards the calculation, the earlier period of service rendered in Mysore Cements Employees Dairy-Co-operative Society Limited could not be taken into consideration since the petitioner was appointed as a Badli worker in Mysore Cements Limited only on 27.06.1999. He therefore, supports the judgment of the Labour Court by further submitting that there is a gap of two years between the Mysore Cements Employees Dairy-Co-operative Society Limited and the appointment at Mysore Cements Limited and this gap would not entitle him for continuity of service to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the amounts due under the voluntary retirement scheme.

¶46

¶47

WP No. 22155 of 2012

¶48

Heard Sri. R. Om Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. G. Sanjay, learned counsel for Sri. D. Leelakrishan, learned counsel for the respondent and perused papers.

¶49

The short question that would arise for my consideration is that:

¶50

Whether the service rendered by the petitioner in Mysore Cements Employees Dairy Co-operative Society Limited can be taken into consideration while calculating the benefits under the VRS scheme offered by Mysore Cements Limited?

¶51

Even as per the admissions made by the petitioner having served and the petitioner was engaged by Mysore Cements Employees Dairy-Co-operative Society Limited in the year 1987 and by order dated 09.09.1997, Mysore Cements Employees Dairy Cooperative Society Limited came to be liquidated.

¶52

¶53

WP No. 22155 of 2012

¶54

The petitioner himself contended that he was appointed as a Badli worker with Mysore Cements Limited on 27.06.1999. Thus, from 09.09.1997 to 27.06.1999, the petitioner was neither working for Mysore Cements Employees Dairy Co-operative Society Limited nor working for Mysore Cements Limited, more so when Mysore Cements Employees Dairy Co-operative Society Limited came to be liquidated on September 9, 1997.

¶55

Thus, no evidence has been produced by the petitioner to establish his continuity of service with Mysore Cements Employees Dairy-Co-operative Society Limited and Mysore Cements Limited, except to say that they are sister concerns operating within the same company, that the Mysore Cements Employees Dairy-Co-operative Society Limited performing ancillary functions required for Mysore Cement Limited to function.

¶56

¶57

WP No. 22155 of 2012

¶58

The issue before the Labour Court, as well as the issue before this Court in the present writ petition is the method and methodology of calculating compensation under the benefits of a voluntary retirement scheme. The methodology has been clearly explained in terms of the calculation to be made on the basis of completed years of service with a particular amount liable to be paid for each year of service, and this is required to be calculated with reference to the service rendered by the petitioner at Mysore Cements Limited, which propounded the voluntary retirement scheme.

¶59

There being a big gap in service of the petitioner in Mysore Cements Employees Dairy-Co-operative Society Limited and Mysore Cement Limited, there cannot be said to be continuity of service which can be taken into consideration as submitted by Sri. Om Kumar.

¶60

10 -

¶61

WP No. 22155 of 2012

¶62

Though he submits that the petitioner is rustic villager who has been taken for a ride and paid less, I am unable to appreciate the said submissions in the absence of any cogent material which is produced by the petitioner to point out the same. The petitioner, having signed the memorandum of settlement, agreed to receive a sum of Rs.1,51,815/-. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot thereafter contend that he is entitled to a higher amount.

¶63

The method of calculation, as detailed in the statement which has been produced and the amounts contained in the memorandum of settlement, the calculation being made from the date of his appointment as a Badli worker dated 27.06.1999 does not suffer from any legal infirmity, nor is any legal infirmity established by the petitioner.

¶64

11 -

¶65

WP No. 22155 of 2012

¶66

In view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that there are no grounds which have been made out to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court in Appeal No.2/2010. As such, the petition stands

¶67

dismissed .

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

GJM

Venkatesh K v. Heildelberg Cement India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatesh K v. Heildelberg Cement India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Management of the Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. Vs Mysore Paper Mills Forest Employees"

The Workmen of Mysore Paper Mills Limited Vs the Management of Mysore Paper Mills Ltd.

Workmen of Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. Vs Managment of M/S Mysore Paper Mills Limited

The Divisional Controller Vs Bengaluru Central Division

K Srinivas Murthy Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Sri. Sathappa Akki Vs the Divisional Controller