Allowed

Sri. Deviprasad K K v. the Management of

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2023WP/52786/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writing on a writ petition challenging an industrial dispute award, the High Court quashed the award for procedural impropriety involving late framing of issues. It remanded the matter to the Labour Court with liberty to file a counter statement.

What did the court decide?

The award dated 17.07.2018 passed by the Labour Court is quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Labour Court with liberty to file a counter statement.

Sri. Deviprasad K K Vs the Management of — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39609 WP No. 52786 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.52786 OF 2018 (L-TER)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. DEVIPRASAD K.K., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI KENCHAPPA, R/A NO. 145-5, CHAITRAVANA CLINIC BUILDING TMEPLE ROAD, DEVASAYA POST AND TALUK, SULLIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 239. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAIK V.S., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S NOVARTIS HEALTH CARE PVT LTD., PHARMACEUTICALS DIVISION, Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N SANDOZ HOUSE, SHIVSAGAR ESTATE, Location: HIGH DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, COURT OF KARNATAKA WORLI, MUMBAI - 400 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISESASE AREA HEAD-METABOLICS.

¶10

…RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI.G.NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI ANEES AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶13

¶14

NC: 2023:KHC:39609 WP No. 52786 of 2018

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Sri.V.S.Naik., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.G.Nataraj., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Anees Ahmed., for the respondent have appeared in person.

¶18

2. The brief facts are these:

¶19

The petitioner was selected and appointed as a Product Advisor in Grade-6 with effect from 08.07.2011. By considering his good performance, the Company revised petitioner's CTC from 12.03.2012. Taking note of sales performance achieved by the petitioner, he was issued with letter of appreciation on 13.04.2015. The petitioner submitted letters dated:03.12.2015 and 28.12.2015 against the illegal order of termination passed by the respondent Company.

¶20

The petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute by filing Claim Petition before the Labour Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in I.D.A No.1/2016. The respondent filed an application

¶21

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39609 WP No. 52786 of 2018

¶22

requesting the Labour Court to reject the Claim Petition contending that the petitioner does not satisfy the definition of workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner filed an affidavit in lieu of his evidence in examination in chief in support of the dispute raised by him. Despite several opportunities extended to the respondent, the respondent did not file counter statement and did not cross examine the petitioner and did not lead evidence either oral or documentary. The Labour Court while passing the award, framed additional issue and held that the petitioner is not a workman under the I.D Act and hence the claim petition is not maintainable and rejected the dispute vide award dated:17.07.2018. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers and the records with utmost care.

¶24

Sri.V.S.Naik., learned counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments vehemently contended that the

¶25

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:39609 WP No. 52786 of 2018

¶26

Labour Court has erred in adjudicating the dispute without giving an opportunity for the parties to lead evidence on the additional issue. He argued by saying that the Labour Court framed the additional Issue at the time of passing of the award and the same is evident from Paragraph No.7 of the award. He drew the attention of the Court to the award of the Labour Court.

¶27

Perused the award with utmost care. It is noticed that the Labour Court framed additional issue as under:

¶28

"Whether the applicant is a workman as

¶29

defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D Act?"

¶30

It appears from the order sheet of the Labour Court that the additional issue is not framed during the pendency of the dispute. The Presiding Officer has framed this issue at the time of passing of the award. The same is also evident from Paragraph No.7 of the award. It is needless to observe that issues and additional issues must be framed at the time of adjudication of the dispute and not at the time of passing of the award. Hence, framing of additional issue at the time of passing of the award is unsustainable. Hence, the parties are deprived

¶31

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:39609 WP No. 52786 of 2018

¶32

of leading evidence on the additional issue. It is pivotal to note that the Presiding Officer ought to have framed the issue during the pendency of the dispute and not at the time of passing of the award. Hence, the finding recorded by the Labour Court and the award are unsustainable in law and it is liable to be set-aside and the matter requires a remand.

¶33

As a last resort, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties jointly submits that the additional issue framed by the Labour Court at the time of passing of the award may be treated as additional issue and a direction may be issued to the Labour Court to proceed further in the matter and adjudicate the dispute in accordance with the law.

¶34

The submission is placed on record. The additional issue framed at the time of passing of the award shall be treated as an additional issue and the Labour Court is directed to adjudicate the dispute in accordance with the law.

¶35

Counsel Sri.G.Nataraj., submits that liberty may be accorded for the respondent to file the counter statement.

¶36

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:39609 WP No. 52786 of 2018

¶37

Submission is noted. The respondent Management is permitted to make a request to the Labour Court by filing appropriate application to file counter statement. If such an application is made, the Labour Court is directed to consider the request and act in accordance with the law.

¶38

For the reasons stated above, the findings recorded by the Labour Court and the award are liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶39

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated:17.07.2018 passed by the Labour Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in I.D.A.No.1/2016 vide Annexure-N is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Labour Court.

¶40

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed and remanded .

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

TKN

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Sri. Deviprasad K K v. the Management of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Deviprasad K K v. the Management of

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

M/S. Sree Gajanana Motor Transport Company Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M G Mohammad Tabib Vs the Director (P & E)

K N Venkatesh Vs the Divisional Controller

The Divisional Controller, Ksrtc Vs Sri. K N Balachandra Rai

The Divisional Controller, Ksrtc Vs Sri. Basavaraju

Karnataka State Road Vs C Mohan Kumar