Disposed

The Management of Grasim Industries Limited v. the Labour Officer Belagavi and

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2024WP/102126/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Company challenged delay by Labour Officer in deciding condonation applications allegedly exceeding 3500 days. Court directed officer to decide delay applications first, provide hearing opportunity for cross-examination and evidence, and complete process within six months.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent to decide condonation applications within six months and grant petitioner opportunity to cross-examine and lead evidence.

The Management of Grasim Industries… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7433 WP No. 102126 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.102126/2022 (L-PG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE MANAGEMENT OF GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, UNIT HARIHAR POLYFIBERS AND GRASILENE DIVISION, KUMARAPATTANAM – 581 123,

¶9

TALUK: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI, REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER LEGAL, MR. VAIBHAV BANE.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI Z. N. HANSI, A.P.BANKAPUR AND PRUTHVIRAJ P. HITTALAMANI, ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE LABOUR OFFICER BELAGAVI AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972, SITTING ON DEPUTATION AT DC OFFICE HAVERI, HAVERI ROAD, DEVAGIRI, DIST: HAVERI – 581 110.

¶14

… RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP)

¶16

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT LABOUR OFFICER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, AT HAVERI TO RE-START THE ADJUDICATION PROCESS BY FIRST PASSING ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WITHOUT ANY DEVIATION IN AND OF ADJUDICATORY PROCESS AND DISPOSE THE APPLICATION ON CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED BY THE WORKERS IN THE CASES AND PROCEEDINGS AS MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE OF APPEARANCE DATED 23.05.2022 AT ANNEXURE-C AND LIST OF CASES AT ANNEXURE-A (LIST AS UNDER) TO THIS PETITION AND ADJUDICATE THE MATTER APPROPRIATELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW THEREBY ALLOWING THE PETITIONER FARE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND ETC.,

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7433 WP No. 102126 of 2022

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner – Company is before this Court

¶22

being aggrieved by the proceedings being conducted by the respondent – Labour Officer and Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which have been initiated at the instance of about 154 workers under various case numbers as per the list, produced at Annexure-A to the writ petition.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, that said claim petitions filed by the persons claiming to be the employees are false as there is no employee and employer relationship between the petitioner and the persons who have initiated the proceedings before the respondent – authorities.

¶24

The principal grievance of the petitioner is that, the claim petitions filed by the workers before the respondent – Labour Officer and Controlling Authority are

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7433 WP No. 102126 of 2022

¶26

barred by limitation. In that he submits that, Rule 7(1) of the Karnataka Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 (for short “the Rules, 1973”) prescribe that an application claiming gratuity needs to be filed in writing in Form No.1 to the employer within 30 days from the date, the gratuity became payable.

¶27

It is his submission that, in instant case

¶28

applications have been filed, admittedly after expiry of in excess of 3500 days in almost every application. He further refers to Sub Rule (5) of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1973 to contend that should there be any delay in filing said applications the same may be condoned subject to satisfaction of reasons for the delay by filing necessary applications.

¶29

He further submits that originally the application did not accompany any application seeking condonation of delay. However, subsequently though applications seeking condondation of delay were filed upon the insistence made by the petitioner herein, the respondent – Labour Officer

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7433 WP No. 102126 of 2022

¶31

and Controlling Authority has not passed any order on the said applications. That unless and until the said applications

¶32

are disposed of in the manner known to law, the respondent

¶33

– Labour Officer and Controlling Authority cannot proceed in the matter, lest the entire proceedings would be an excise in futility.

¶34

The second contention of the petitioner is that, the entire manner in which the proceedings are being conducted are contrary to the principles of natural justice. In that he submits that neither the copies of the claim petitions nor the evidence of the claimants are furnished to the petitioner enabling the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. He submits that all efforts made by the petitioner, including filing of the application seeking certified copies have been negated / declined by the respondent – Labour Officer and Controlling Authority on one reason or the other.

¶35

He further submits that the petitioner for want of information was neither able to cross-examine the

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7433 WP No. 102126 of 2022

¶37

witnesses nor was in a position to lead its evidence. He submits that presently the matters are posted for passing of orders, but for the interim order granted by this Court, the proceeding would have been terminated by now. Hence, he submits that necessary direction be issued to the respondent – Labour Officer and Controlling Authority to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the applications filed by the claimant seeking condonation of the inordinate delay and thereafter sufficient opportunity be granted to the petitioner to prosecute the matter in the manner no to law.

¶38

Learned HCGP submits that though sufficient opportunity was granted, the petitioner has dragged the matter for one or the other reason. He however fairly submits that notwithstanding the same, a time limit be set directing the respondent – Labour Officer and Controlling Authority to dispose of the applications for condonation of delay and the petitioner to provide opportunity to crossexamine witnesses and lead his evidence.

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7433 WP No. 102126 of 2022

¶40

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶41

parties and perused the petition papers.

¶42

There is no dispute about the fact that the application seeking condonation of delay in excess of 3500 days have been filed by the claimants and no order thereon has been passed by the respondent – Labour Officer and Controlling Authority . Unless and until the said applications are adjudicated, it is needless to emphasize, the proceedings cannot proceed further.

¶43

In support of his contention that, requirement of condonation of delay is a condition precedent for proceeding with the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner rely upon

¶44

the following citations:

¶45

(i) Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Central Division Vs. The Deputy Labour Commissioner and the Appellate Authority and Ors.¹

¶46

1 2008(2) KCCR 882

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7433 WP No. 102126 of 2022

¶48

(ii) Madura Coats Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Ors.²

¶49

(ii) R.P. Dhanda Vs. Regional manager, UCO Bank and Ors.³

¶50

It is now settled law that without considering the application for condoning the delay, the Controlling Authority dealing with the matter on merit would be one without jurisdiction. The respondent – Labour Officer and Controlling Authority, who is vested with the statutory power to adjudicate upon the matter is expected to act judiciously and adjudicate the applications filed by the parties in accordance with law.

¶51

In that view of the matter, the respondent –

¶52

Labour Officer and Controlling Authority is hereby be directed:

¶53

(a) At first to hear the applications filed by the claimants seeking condonation of delay and the objections to the said applications filed by the

¶54

2 (1993) III LLJ 923 Madras

¶55

3 (2007) III LLJ 106 Bombay

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7433 WP No. 102126 of 2022

¶57

petitioner herein and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶58

(b) The respondent – Labour Officer and Controlling Authority, thereafter, subject to the orders passed on the applications, provide an opportunity to the petitioner herein to crossexamine the claimants, who have already been examined in support of their application.

¶59

(c) The respondent – Labour Officer and Controlling Authority shall also provide an opportunity to the petitioner to lead its evidence and, after affording an opportunity to the claimants to cross-examine the witnesses and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶60

(d) The entire process shall be undertaken by the respondent – Labour Officer and Controlling Authority within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶61

It is made clear that no opinion or finding is

¶62

expressed on the merits or demerits of the case. All contentions are kept open.

¶63

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7433 WP No. 102126 of 2022

¶64

It is further made clear that, the claimants though are not made parties to this writ proceedings, since no adverse orders are passed except providing an opportunity to the parties as noted above, notice to the claimants have been dispensed with.

¶65

The Registry to send a copy of this order to the respondent – Labour Officer and Controlling Authority , who shall furnish the same to the claimants.

¶66

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed off.

¶67

In view of the disposal of writ petition, pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are accordingly disposed off.

¶68

SD/JUDGE

¶69

VNP*/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

The Management of Grasim Industries Limited v. the Labour Officer Belagavi and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of Grasim Industries Limited v. the Labour Officer Belagavi and

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

The Belgaum Zilla Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Balabheema Vs the Appellate Authority

S Ramanayak S/O. R. Sanyanaka Vs Chancellor

Annaji S/O Laxman Rao Mulagund Aliyas Mulagund Vs Palakshayya S/O Shivamurtiswamy Ramateerthamath Aliyas Kulkarni Since Dead Neelambika Aliyas

Sri. Ck Srinivas S/O C K Vs Karnataka Power Corporation Limited

M Shashavali S/O Late Abdulsab Vs the State of Karnataka