Allowed

Sri K S Sugunachary v. the General Manager

Karnataka HC29 May 2023WP/25273/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this writ petition, noting that a 2010 amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act brought HAL under the Central Government's jurisdiction. The court distinguished a cited Supreme Court decision based on the pre-amendment timeline and set aside the tribunal's award that rejected the claim petition due to lack of jurisdiction, remitting the matter for consideration on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award dated 18.08.2017 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the tribunal for consideration on merits.

Sri K S Sugunachary Vs the General Manager — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 25273 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.25273 OF 2018 (L-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. K.S. SUGUNACHARY, S/O K.S. SHAMACHARI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO.57, II CROSS, SANJAYANAGAR, MARATHHALLI, BANGALORE-37.

¶8

SRI. M. DINAGARAN, S/O K. MOHANVELU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NO.26/1, THIMMAREDDY BUILDING, OPP. KANNADA PRIMARY SCHOOL, SANJAYANAGAR, MARATHHALLI, BANGALORE-37.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

[BY SRI. KUTTAPPA B.D., ADVOCATE (VC)]

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE GENERAL MANAGER, HINDUSTHAN AERONAUTICS LTD., CUBBON ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

[BY SRI. KAVEESH SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.R.KAMALACHARAN, ADVOCATE OF M/s. SUNDARASWAMY & RAMDAS (VC)]

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, QUASH THE AWARD DATED 18.08.2017 IN C.R.NO.15/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 25273 of 2018

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Challenging award dated 18.08.2017 passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short ' Tribunal ') in C.R.no.15/2016 at Annexure-E, this writ petition is filed.

¶22

Sri Kuttappa B.D., learned counsel for petitioners submitted that under impugned award, tribunal was pleased to reject claim petition relying on judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nashik Workers Union Vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited¹ . It was submitted that said decision was rendered by referring Section 2(a) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ' ID Act '), prior to its amendment w.e.f. 15.09.2010 and that amendment would clearly render claim petition maintainable before tribunal. Hence, sought for allowing writ petition.

¶23

Sri S.R.Kamalcharan, learned counsel for respondent sought to support award.

¶24

1 2018 SCC On-Line Bom. 3954

¶25

¶26

WP No. 25273 of 2018

¶27

Heard learned counsel, perused writ petition

¶28

records.

¶29

In view of above submissions, only point that would require consideration is, whether rejection of claim petition by tribunal on ground of jurisdiction would be justified.

¶30

Admittedly, respondent - Hindusthan Aeronautics Limited (for short ' HAL ') is a Central Government undertaking. By virtue of amendment to Section 2(a)(i) by Act.no.24 of 2010, definition of "appropriate government" would now read as follows:

¶31

2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,—

¶32

(a) “appropriate Government” means—

¶33

(i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, or by a railway company, or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government, or in relation to an industrial dispute concerning a Dock Labour Board established under section 5A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948), or the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation established under section 3 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of Trustees constituted under section 3A of the

¶34

¶35

WP No. 25273 of 2018

¶36

Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Boards of Trustees constituted under section 5A and section 5B, respectively, of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)], or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of India established under section 3, or a Board of Management established for two or more contiguous States under section 16, of the Food Corporations Act, 1964 (37 of 1964), or the Airports Authority of India constituted under section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (55 of 1994)], or a Regional Rural Bank established under section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), or the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation Limited or the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Limited, the National Housing Bank established under section 3 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987)], or an air transport service, or a banking or an insurance company, a mine, an oil-field, a Cantonment Board, or a major port, any company in which not less than fifty-one per cent. of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government, or any corporation, not being a corporation referred to in this clause, established by or under any law made by Parliament, or the Central public sector undertaking, subsidiary companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the Central Government, the Central Government, and

¶37

¶38

WP No. 25273 of 2018

¶39

By virtue of amendment, appropriate government insofar as HAL would be Central Government. Therefore, claim petition would be maintainable only before tribunal.

¶40

Since only reason for rejecting claim petition is by relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court which was rendered by considering Section 2(a) of I.D. Act, prior to it's amendment in year 2010, impugned award would be sustainable.

¶41

In view of above, writ petition is allowed, impugned award dated 18.08.2017 passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in C.R.no.15/2016 at Annexure-E is set-aside. Matter is remitted back to tribunal for consideration on merits.

¶42

Since both parties are represented by counsel and dispute is of year 2016, they are directed to appear before tribunal without awaiting fresh notice on 03.07.2023 and cooperate for early conclusion of proceedings.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

GRD

Sri K S Sugunachary v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K S Sugunachary v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India Vs M/S. Samrat Ashok Exports Ltd.

M/S D'Ranflex and Hobal Workers Vs the Addl Labour Commissioner

M/S Bvg India Limited Vs Union of India

K N Ramesh Reddy Vs the Divisional Controller and

Shankarappa C Vs the Managing Director Ksrtc

Shri Prashanth Nittur Vs State of Karnataka