Partly allowed

Wonderla Karmika Sangha v. the Management

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2023WP/50485/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order allowing a contractor to delete its name from industrial dispute proceedings. However, it allowed another petition quashing an order rejecting the Principal Employer's impleadment, holding that a Principal Employer is not a necessary party unless sufficient cause arises during the inquiry.

What did the court decide?

WP 50485/2018 dismissed; WP 24667/2019 allowed; impugned order rejecting Principal Employer's impleadment quashed.

Wonderla Karmika Sangha Vs the Management — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 50485 of 2018 C/W WP No. 24667 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 50485 OF 2018 (L-TER)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 24667 OF 2019(L-RES) IN WRIT PETITION NO. 50485 OF 2018:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

WONDERLA KARMIKA SANGHA C/O NARASIMHAIAH, RANGANATHA PROVISION STORES, NO.150, 3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN, SANJEEVININAGAR, HEGGANAHALLI, OPP. NEW CARMEL HIGH SCHOOL, BANGALORE - 560 091, REPRESENTED BY SRI KANTHARAJU C AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, GENERAL SECRETARY.

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI. ANANTHARAM T S., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

THE MANAGEMENT

¶17

M /S WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LIMITED 28TH K.M., MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 562 109, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER.

¶18

M/S HEMA SECURITY & DETECTIVE SERVICES JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, SHIKARIPALYA, HULIMANGALA POST, JIGANI HOBLI,

¶19

¶20

WP No. 50485 of 2018 C/W WP No. 24667 of 2019

¶21

ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 105.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. B K PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN AID NO.11/2017 AT ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ETC.

¶25

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 24667 OF 2019:

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

M/S WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LIMITED 28KM, MYSURU ROAD, REP BY ITS PRESIDENT - ADMINISTRAIN, MR. SIVADAS M

¶28

…PETITIONER

¶29

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH B K., ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

VENKATESH M S/O. MAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS (FIRST PARTY IN ID NO. 22/2016).

¶32

RAKESH M K S/O. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, (FIRST PARTY IN ID NO. 23/2016).

¶33

MANJUNATH S S/O. SHIVARAMU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, (FIRST PARTY IN I.D. NO. 24/2016).

¶34

PREMACHANDRA SAGAR T S/O. THIMMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, (FIRST PARTY IN I.D. NO. 25/2016).

¶35

¶36

WP No. 50485 of 2018 C/W WP No. 24667 of 2019

¶37

CHANDRASHEKAR RAO S/O. KRISHNAOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, (FIRST PARTY IN ID NO. 26/2016).

¶38

SHANKAR N S/O. NAGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, (FIRST PARTY IN ID NO. 27/2016).

¶39

KIRAN KUMAR K S/O. KARAMAIAH BABU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, (FIRST PARTY IN ID NO. 28/2016).

¶40

HANUMANTHAIAH H S/O. HOMBAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, (FIRST PARTY IN ID NO. 29/2016).

¶41

ROHITH A S S/O. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, (FIRST PARTY IN ID NO. 30/2016).

¶42

PRABHAKAR K S/O. KARIPPA. C, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, (FIRST PARTY IN ID NO. 31/2016).

¶43

SREEKANTH V S/O. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, (FIRST PARTY IN ID NO. 32/2016).

¶44

SUNIL KUMAR K S/O. KRISHNAMURTHY D N, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, (FIRST PARTY IN ID NO. 33/2016).

¶45

BHARATH RAJEURS M B S/O. BASAVARAJEURS, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, (FIRST PARTY IN ID NO. 34/2016).

¶46

¶47

WP No. 50485 of 2018 C/W WP No. 24667 of 2019

¶48

HANUMANTHA R, S/O. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, (FIRST PARTY IN I.D. NO. 35/2016).

¶49

SEENAIAH, S/O. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, (FIRST PARTY IN ID NO. 36/2016).

¶50

SHIVARAJU C, S/O. CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, (FIRST PARTY IN I.D. NO. 37/2016).

¶51

KUMARA, S/O. MARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, (FIRST PARTY IN I.D. NO. 38/2016).

¶52

VINAY KUMAR M S, S/O. SHIVANNA M, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, (FIRST PARTY IN I.D. NO. 39/2016)

¶53

MADHU C M, S/O. M . SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, (FIRST PARTY IN I.D. NO. 40/2016).

¶54

MUNI MOHAN BOSLE, S/O. RAMACHANDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, (FIRST PARTY IN I.D. NO. 41/2016).

¶55

(ADDRESS OF RESPONDENT C/O. TRADE UNIONS OFFICE, NO. 138, GROUND FLOOR, 9TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, CHAMRAJPET, BENGALURU-560 091).

¶56

…RESPONDENTS

¶57

(BY SRI. T S ANANTHARAM., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATORS/ R-1 TO R-20)

¶58

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.4.2019 ISSUED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN I.D.NOS. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 AND 41/2016 [ANNEXURE-H].

¶59

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶60

¶61

WP No. 50485 of 2018 C/W WP No. 24667 of 2019

¶62

ORDER

¶63

Since the issue involved in these matters are similar, they are taken up together and disposed of by common order.

¶64

In WP.No.50485/2018, the petitioner-union has called in question the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Addl. Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in AID No.11/2017 allowing the application filed by respondent No.1 herein(2nd party No.1) to delete the name of respondent No.1 from further proceedings.

¶65

WP.No.24667/2019 is filed questioning the order dated 27.04.2019 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagar in I.D.NOS. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 AND 41/2016 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner herein to delete the name of petitioner as the party to the proceedings.

¶66

The second respondent i.e., the Contractor transferred 60 workmen to Hyderabad and Kochi and also dismissed and suspended several permanent workmen of the establishment and engaged more contract labourers reducing the strength from 160 to 60, in order to avoid absorption. The petitioner-Union communicated with the first and second respondent not to remove the services of contract labourers, since all of them were operating different rides of the amusement park along with the permanent workmen of the first respondent-Establishment/Management. Hence, the petitioner took up the cause of contract labourers under the

¶67

¶68

WP No. 50485 of 2018 C/W WP No. 24667 of 2019

¶69

principles of Community Interest and raised the dispute under Section 10(1) (C) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Addl. Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in AID No.11/2017.

¶70

In WP.No.50485/2018

¶71

The first respondent filed an application under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act for deleting it as a party to the dispute stating that there exists no relationship of employer and workman and the dispute raised by the petitioner against first respondent does not come within the meaning of Industrial Dispute. The Tribunal concerned allowed the application stating that the workmen are not employed by the first respondent-Management and the relief is sought only as against the contractor.

¶72

In WP.No.24667/2019

¶73

The respondent-Workmen raised the dispute under Section 10(4) of the Act and the made the petitioner as necessary party. In the said dispute, the petitioner filed an application to delete it as a party stating that there exist no relationship of employer and workman and no relief is claimed as against the Principal Employer. The said application came to be rejected against which the petitioner has filed this petition.

¶74

Learned counsel for the Principal Employer would submit that the Principal Employer is not a necessary party, since there exist no relationship of Employer and Workmen and also no relief is claimed as against the Principal Employer. He further submits that the Principal Employer can be impleaded

¶75

¶76

WP No. 50485 of 2018 C/W WP No. 24667 of 2019

¶77

subsequently during the pendency of the dispute only if the Industrial Tribunal comes to a conclusion that sufficient cause is made out for impleadment of Principal Employer. In support he places reliance on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the High Court of Madras, the High Court of Allahabad and the High Court of Bombay:

¶78

a. Mukand Ltd. v. Mukand Staff & Officers' Assn.,(2004) 10 SCC 460

¶79

b. SAIL v. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1

¶80

c. Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra, 1957 SCR 152

¶81

d. Workmen v. Food Corpn. of India, (1985) 2 SCC 136

¶82

e. Civil Aviation Training College vs. Mohan Lal Prajapati [High Court of Allahabad- C.M.W.P. No. 32146/2013]

¶83

f The Management of International Travel House Limited Vs. The Presiding Officer,First Additional Labour Court and ors. [ High Court of MadrasW.P. No.24542/2004]

¶84

g. Indian Seamless Metal Tubes, Ltd. v. Sunil Rambhau Iwale, 2001 SCC OnLine Bom 492

¶85

h. Chief Engineer, Hydel Project v. Ravinder Nath, (2008) 2 SCC 350

¶86

On the other hand, learned counsel for the workmen submits that in the conciliation proceeding, the Principal Employer did not object for impleadment, and accordingly, the Conciliation Officer has submitted a report, and referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute in question. There is specific allegation in the claim

¶87

¶88

WP No. 50485 of 2018 C/W WP No. 24667 of 2019

¶89

petition that the transfer/termination of the services of the employees-workmen was at instigation of the Principal Employer and to establish malafides, against the Principal Employer is necessary and proper party. In support, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hochtief Gammon v. Industrial Tribunal, [(1964) 7 SCR 596] and also the decision of the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Andhra Printers Limited, Hyderabad vs. Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-1.

¶90

Considered the rival submissions of the parties and also perused the material on record.

¶91

Section 2(A) of the Act deals with dismissal etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute, and it specifies that, whether any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute. To put it simply, the Industrial dispute refers to a dispute between employer and workman and not with any other person.

¶92

Section 18 of the Act deals with the person on whom settlements and awards are binding, and Clause (3)(b) specifies all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the Board, as the

¶93

¶94

WP No. 50485 of 2018 C/W WP No. 24667 of 2019

¶95

as the case may be, records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause.

¶96

A reading of Section 18(3)(b) of the Act indicates that the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal concerned can implead any other person other than the workman or the employer, only if sufficient cause is made out for summoning.

¶97

In the instant case, the workmen/Trade Union has impleaded the Principal Employer by stating that the transfer/termination was made at the instigation of the Principal Employer. It is only during course of enquiry, if the Labour Court concerned comes to a conclusion that the Principal Employer is a necessary party to decide the dispute or any matter incidental thereto, can summon the Principal Employer. Hence, at this stage, the Principal Employer is not a necessary or proper party to adjudicate the dispute in question.

¶98

It is always open for the Workmen/Trade Union to file an application for impleadment at the appropriate stage. If such an application is filed, the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal concerned finds that there is sufficient cause for summoning the Principal Employer, can pass appropriate order. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶99

ORDER

¶100

i. W.P.No.50485/2018 is dismissed.

¶101

ii. W.P.No.24667/2019 is allowed.

¶102

iii. The impugned orders dated 27.4.2019 passed by the Principal District And Sessions Judge, Ramanagara in I.D.Nos. 22, 23,

¶103

10 -

¶104

WP No. 50485 of 2018 C/W WP No. 24667 of 2019

¶105

24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41/2016 are hereby quashed.

¶106

iv) The impugned order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Addl. Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in AID.No.11/2014 (Annexure-H) is hereby confirmed in W.P.No.50485/2018.

¶107

Sd/JUDGE

¶108

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Wonderla Karmika Sangha v. the Management

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wonderla Karmika Sangha v. the Management

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

Ravi Kumar. C Vs the Commissioner of Excise

M/S Nanjappa Trust Vs Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Panchayat Development Officer Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Minimum

Sri K N Nagaraj Vs Sri S Padhmanabhan

Sri G Nagaraja Vs the Divisional Controller

Shahanaz Begum Vs the Divisional Controller