Allowed

M/S Essillor Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. the President

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2023WP/54007/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed Labour Commissioner's order permitting petitioner's prosecution. Court held petitioner complied with settlement terms adding Rs.125 to basic pay. Settlement obligation was misinterpreted by Labour Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 16.10.2018 accorded permission to prosecute the petitioner is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed.

M/S Essillor Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41159 WP No. 54007 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.54007 OF 2018 (L-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S ESSILLOR MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT LTD., NO.48, L & M, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, DODDABALLAPUR - 561 203. BENGALURU NORTH DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS FACTORY MANAGER, SRI. HIREN MALPE.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SOMASHEKAR., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE PRESIDENT, ESSILLOR MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT LTD., KARMIKA SANGHA, SRIRAMULU NILAYAM, NO.7, BALAJI LAYOUT, VIA 12^TH CROSS, MARUTHI EXTENSION, HEBBAL AGRICUTURAL FARM POST, DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 024.

¶13

THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (ADM), OFFICE OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, KARMIKA BHAVANA BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.T.S.ANANTHARAM., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 [ABSENT]; SMT.RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R2)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:41159 WP No. 54007 of 2018

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Sri.S.N.Murthy., learned Senior counsel on behalf of Sri.Somashekar., for the petitioner and Smt.Rashmi Patel., learned HCGP for respondent No.2 have appeared in person.

¶21

When the matter is called there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1, either personally or through video conferencing.

¶22

As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 16.11.2023. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and HCGP for respondent No.2 were present; there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.1. This Court, heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and HCGP and the petition was ordered to be listed on 17.11.2023 to hear learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC:41159 WP No. 54007 of 2018

¶25

The petition is listed today. As already noted above, when the matter is called there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1, either personally or through video conferencing. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass orders on the merits.

¶26

The brief facts are these:

¶27

The petitioner is 100% Export Oriented Unit engaged in the manufacture of ophthalmic lenses employing around 650 employees. On 24.08.2012, the petitioner entered into a settlement with the Union under Section 12(3) and 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Clause B(5) is regarding payment of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) per year which will be proportionately at Rs.125/(Rupees One Hundred and Twenty Five only) every month added to the basic pay. The petitioner added Rs.125/- (Rupees One Hundred and Twenty Five only) to the basic salary of February 2013 along with arrears for the month of January 2013 and has been continuing the said payment as per the terms of settlement. The first respondent Union gave a complaint to the second respondent alleging that payment of

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:41159 WP No. 54007 of 2018

¶29

Rs.125/- (Rupees One Hundred and Twenty Five only) has not been added to the basic pay from January 2014 onwards as per Clause B(5) of the settlement. The second respondent issued show-cause notice and called upon the petitioner to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted its reply to the show cause notice informing that Rs.125/- (Rupees One Hundred and Twenty Five only) shoe allowance is added every month to the basic salary and that there is no violation of Clause B(5) of settlement. On 16.10.2018, the second respondent passed an order and accorded permission to prosecute the petitioner. It is this order that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶30

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

¶31

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The memorandum of settlement entered on 24.08.2012 is furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-A.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:41159 WP No. 54007 of 2018

¶34

It is clear from the Statement at Annexure-L that the petitioner has complied the Clause B(5) of the settlement at Annexure-A from January 2013. In fact, Rs.125/- (Rupees One Hundred and Twenty Five only) was added to the basic pay of each employee in February 2013 and arrears of Rs.125/(Rupees One Hundred and Twenty Five only) for January 2013 paid is separately shown in the pay-slips at Annexures-F to F4. Therefore, the contention of the first respondent Union and conclusion of the second respondent that from January 2014, Rs.125/- (Rupees One Hundred and Twenty Five only) is not paid as per Clause B(5) of the settlement, is totally unwarranted and unjustified.

¶35

A perusal of the Settlement dated:24.08.2014 would clearly depicts that what was agreed is the payment of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) will be proportionately be added to the monthly Basic salary i.e., 125/(Rupees One Hundred and Twenty Five only) each to the members of the Union listed in Annexure-I. The Labour Commissioner misinterpreted the Clause B(5) of the agreement and erroneously went ahead and accorded permission to prosecute the petitioner. This is unsustainable in law. For the

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:41159 WP No. 54007 of 2018

¶38

reasons stated above, the order passed by the second respondent according permission to prosecute the petitioner is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶39

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order

¶40

dated:16.10.2018 passed by the second respondent in DzÉÃ±À

¶41

¸ÀASÉå: LJJ-1/¹Dgï-05/2014-15 vide Annexure-K is quashed.

¶42

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

TKN/MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

M/S Essillor Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. the President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Essillor Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. the President

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

V M Ravindra Vs the Assistant General Manager I/a

Karnataka State Road Vs T P Harshanarayana

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs C D Ramaiah

Sri. G. S. Subramanian Vs the National Textile Corporation Limited

Sri C Ravikumar Vs the National Textile Corporation Limited

Sri Krishnan a P Vs the National Textile Corporation Limited