Fouress Engineering (India) Ltd. v. Sri Rahmath Ali Khan

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2023WP/4121/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition in part, setting aside an ex parte order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner. The order was quashed because the underlying dismissal of workmen, which was the subject of a pending execution application, had been reconsidered by the Tribunal following a recent reversal of the Tribunal's earlier rejection order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner is set aside, and the matter is remitted to him to consider the application for back wages after disposal of the Section 33

Fouress Engineering (India) Ltd. Vs Sri… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:27560 WP No. 4121 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4121 OF 2022 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

FOURESS ENGINEERING (INDIA) LTD. PLOT NO.2, 2ND PHASE PEENYA INDUSTIRAL AREA BENGALURU-560058

¶9

REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER-HR AND ADMIN. SRI.M. MAHESH

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI RAHMATH ALI KHAN S/O SRI MEHABOOB KHAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, C/O VENUGOPAL BUILDING, NO.10, KALYANANAGAR T.DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560057.

¶15

SRI K.S. SIDDAGANGAIAH S/O SRI. KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS SUGGANAYYANAPALYA NIDAVANDA POST SOMPURA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶16

FOURESS ENGINEERING KARMIKA SANGHA (AFFILIATED TO CITU) NO.25, 4TH CROSS

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:27560 WP No. 4121 of 2022

¶19

BYRAPPA LAYOUT NAGASHETTIHALLI BENGALURU-560094 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI.K.S.SUBRAHMANYA

¶20

THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER DIVISION-1 KARNATAKA STATE LABOUR INSTITUTE BUILDING ROOM NO.12 AND 13 FIRST FLOOR GOVT.HIGH SCHOOL MANJUNATHA NAGAR, BAGALKUNTE BENGALURU-560073

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. K.S.SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR TO R-3 AND ALSO FOR R-1 AND R2; SMT. VANITA K.R., G.A FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.UKAA1/VASULATHI/CR-14/2019-20 DATED 23.12.2021 AT ANNEXURE-U PASSED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT AND PASS SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER AS DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

THIS PETITION PERTAINING TO BENGALURU BENCH HAVING BEEN COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THE COURT SITTING AT KALABURAGI BENCH THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The company viz., Fouress Engineering (India) Ltd.

¶27

has preferred this petition assailing the order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the 4^th respondent – Deputy Labour

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:27560 WP No. 4121 of 2022

¶29

Commissioner, whereby, the application filed under Section 33(c)(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘ the ID Act ’) was allowed and directed the petitioner – company to pay an amount of Rs.15,91,304/- and Rs.13,63,702/- as backwages to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - workmen.

¶30

Heard Sri Somashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Subramanya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Smt. Anitha .N., learned HCGP for the respondent No.4.

¶31

The learned counsel Sri Somashekar for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner though appeared and requested to defer the proceedings, by then, due to the intervention Covid-19 pandemic, there has been no sitting and the respondent authority without issuing any fresh notice, placing the petitioner ex parte has passed the impugned order. It is brought to the notice of this court that the petitioner has filed an application seeking to recall the ex parte order in

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:27560 WP No. 4121 of 2022

¶33

miscellaneous application and without passing any orders on the said application, the impugned order came to be passed.

¶34

The facts are that, the respondent Nos.3 and 4

¶35

were charge-sheeted for the series act of misconduct and dismissed from the service on 13.03.2002. The approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act was filed by the Management before the Tribunal seeking approval of the dismissal. By the impugned order dated 12.02.2018, the Tribunal rejected the application seeking approval. Pursuant to which, the respondent No.3 – Union filed an application for execution under Section 33(c)(1) of the ID Act for recovery of the backwages.

¶36

Aggrieved by the dismissal approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, W.P.Nos.10733/2020 and 12149/2020 were preferred before this Court.

¶37

This court considering the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel on both sides, has allowed

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:27560 WP No. 4121 of 2022

¶39

the writ petitions by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act and remitted the matter to the Industrial Tribunal to re-consider the same in accordance with law.

¶40

In view of the disposal of the said petitions, assailing the order of rejection of approval filed under Section 33(2)(b) of ID Act and remitting the matter to the Tribunal, the impugned order passed by respondent No.4 needs to be set aside and the present petition also needs to be remitted back to the respondent No.4 with a direction to pass appropriate orders after affording sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the parties. Accordingly, this court pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. The writ petition is allowed in part.

¶43

ii. The impugned order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the respondent No.4 is hereby set aside .

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:27560 WP No. 4121 of 2022

¶45

iii. Matter is remitted to the respondent No.4 to consider the same after disposal of the Application filed by the company under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act before the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.67/2000, after affording sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the parties to put forth their contentions and pass necessary orders thereafter in accordance with law.

¶46

iv. All the contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged before the Tribunal.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

BL List No.: 19 Sl No.: 11 Ct:NS

Fouress Engineering (India) Ltd. v. Sri Rahmath Ali Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fouress Engineering (India) Ltd. v. Sri Rahmath Ali Khan

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

Smt Ashwini R Vs the Commissioner

M/S Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd, Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Sri.S.S.Mukunda Vs the Management of M/S Volvo Construction Equipments India Pvt. Ltd.

K. N. Venkataramaiah Vs Union of India

Sri. Channakrishnaiah C Vs Union of India

Ravikumar Kakade Vs Union of India