Allowed

Manjegowda v. Hemavathi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Ltd.

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2024WP/10992/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Workmen sought monetary benefits under Section 33-C(2) ID Act based on a 1997 Cane Commissioner order regularizing their services, kept in abeyance until 2007. The Labour Court dismissed their applications; the High Court found this perverse, ruling that abeyance suspends rather than extinguishes entitlements.

What did the court decide?

Labour Court orders set aside; regularization order dated 03.06.1997 to be implemented with balance monetary benefits payable within three months after deducting amounts already paid.

Manjegowda Vs Hemavathi Sahakari Sakkare… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:38677 WP No. 10992 of 2020 C/W WP No. 22669 of 2019 WP No. 23600 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.10992 OF 2020 (L-RES)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.22669 OF 2019 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.23600 OF 2019 (L-RES)

¶10

IN W.P. No. 10992/2020

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

MANJEGOWDA S/O. PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, MADHEGOWDA KOOPALU, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573116. ... PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶14

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

¶15

AND:

¶16

HEMAVATHI SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE LTD., SRINIVASAPURA, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573116.

¶17

REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶18

CHAMUNDESHWARI SUGAR LTD., SRINIVASAPURA, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 116. REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. ... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI A. CHANDRA CHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2 – SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38677 WP No. 10992 of 2020 C/W WP No. 22669 of 2019 WP No. 23600 of 2019

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LABOUR COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.02/2017 DATED 18.01.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR.

¶22

IN W.P. NO.22669/2019

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

JAYARAM S/O. ERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, GAYATHRI EXTENSION, 7^TH WARD, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 116. ... PETITIONER

¶25

(BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

HEMAVATHI SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE LTD., SRINIVASAPURA, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 116.

¶28

CHAMUNDESHWARI SUGAR LTD., SRINIVASAPURA, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 116. ... RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI A. CHANDRA CHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2 – SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LABOUR COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.03/2017 DATED 18.01.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR.

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:38677 WP No. 10992 of 2020 C/W WP No. 22669 of 2019 WP No. 23600 of 2019

¶32

¶33

IN W.P. NO.23600/2019

¶34

BETWEEN:

¶35

LINGARAJU S/O. B. SHIVANNA, NAGASANDRA ROAD, GAYATHRI EXTENSION, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN – 573 116. ... PETITIONER

¶36

(BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND:

¶38

HEMAVATHI SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE LTD., SRINIVASAPURA, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 116. REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶39

CHAMUNDESHWARI SUGAR LTD., SRINIVASAPURA, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 116. REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A. CHANDRA CHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2 – SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LABOUR COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.04/2017 DATED 18.01.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR.

¶40

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶42

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38677 WP No. 10992 of 2020 C/W WP No. 22669 of 2019 WP No. 23600 of 2019

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

Petitioners-applicants are before this Court in these writ petitions assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 18.01.2019 in application Nos.2/2017, 3/2017 and 4/2017 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Chikkamagaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'Labour Court' for the sake of convenience), wherein, the applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’ for short) were dismissed.

¶45

Applications were filed by petitioners-applicants under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act, contending that the Commissioner for Cane Development and Director for Sugar, (‘Cane Commissioner’ for short) has passed an award on 03.06.1997, directing the respondent to regularize the services of eligible petitioners for permanent (regular) post and sought for monetary benefits from the date of due till the payment of the same along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38677 WP No. 10992 of 2020 C/W WP No. 22669 of 2019 WP No. 23600 of 2019

¶47

Respondent No.1 filed objections to the said

¶48

applications contending that workmen are not eligible for monetary benefits from 30.01.1992, since order dated 03.06.1997 was kept in abeyance by the Cane Commissioner and the same was lifted only in the year 2007, as such, they are not entitled for the monetary benefits for the period when the order of regularization was kept in abeyance and sought for dismissal of the application.

¶49

Before the Labour Court, workmen adduced evidence by examining themselves as W.W.1 in each application and marked documents. On the other hand, the respondent examined two witnesses as M.W.1 and M.W.2 and marked documents at EXs.M.1 to M.15. The Labour Court by the impugned award dismissed the applications.

¶50

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶51

reiterating the various contentions raised in the writ petitions would mainly urge that the Cane Commissioner

¶52

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38677 WP No. 10992 of 2020 C/W WP No. 22669 of 2019 WP No. 23600 of 2019

¶53

has passed an order regularizing the services of petitioners on 03.06.1997 and held that the petitioners are entitled for back wages from 03.06.1997. It is contended that the similar applications filed by the applicant seeking monetary benefits from the respondents was allowed by the Labour Court, however, overlooking its earlier order, dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners. It is also contended that there is no limitation for filing the application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act.

¶54

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would mainly contend that the petitioners are not entitled for any monetary benefits as directed by the Labour Court from 03.06.1997, as the order of the Cane Commissioner dated 03.06.1997 directing regularization of the petitioners into service was kept in abeyance and thereafter, the order of the Cane Commissioner was lifted only on 31.05.2007 and the petitioners are not entitled for any wages from 03.06.1997 to 11.05.2007. It is contended that the Labour Court, by appreciating the

¶55

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:38677 WP No. 10992 of 2020 C/W WP No. 22669 of 2019 WP No. 23600 of 2019

¶56

entire material placed before it, has directed back wages from 1997 till the lifting of the orders and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶57

7. Respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner

¶58

has leased out the factory after obtaining necessary approval from the Government of Karnataka, respondent No.2 being the successful bidder was provided with the lease by the petitioner from the period commencing from 26.10.2007 for a period of 30 years and that there is no direction by the Cane Commissioner to respondent No.2 and the directions issued by the Cane Commissioner on 03.06.1997 to regularize the service of the petitioners is not applicable to respondent No.2 as the lease was entered only on 26.10.2007 and not prior to it.

¶59

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is,

¶60

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:38677 WP No. 10992 of 2020 C/W WP No. 22669 of 2019 WP No. 23600 of 2019

¶61

"Whether the order of abeyance by the Commissioner for Cane Development would disentitle the applicants seeking monetary benefits, when the Commissioner for Cane Development has regularized the services of the applicants on 03.06.1997 ? "

¶62

This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶63

Petitioners filed a petition under Section 70(1)(e) and (2) of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 to declare them as permanent employees of the respondent-factory by contending that they were appointed w.e.f. 30.01.1992, they were discharging the duties, they come under the category of permanent employees, that the respondent-establishment is a factory as per Section 2(j) of the ID Act, and petitioners – applicants are workmen as per Section 2(s) of the ID Act. The said dispute was allowed by the Cane Commissioner by order dated 03.06.1997. The said order directed the

¶64

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:38677 WP No. 10992 of 2020 C/W WP No. 22669 of 2019 WP No. 23600 of 2019

¶65

respondent-factory to regularize the services of petitioners against the permanent (regular) post and that the respondent-factory should follow the roster system for reservation of the said posts. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Cane Commissioner reads as under -

¶66

"The Managing Director of the Karkhane is hereby directed to find out the number of backlog vacancies category-wise in the 'permanent' and 'seasonal permanent' categories of sanctioned and filled up posts and take action to fill them up as per the relative Government Order and Policy of Government. He shall not make appointments of candidates belonging to any other categories until and unless the backlog vacancies meant for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are fill up by following the procedure laid-down by the Government in this behalf."

¶67

Appeal was preferred by the respondent-factory

¶68

in Appeal No.494/1997 before the Appellate Tribunal, The Tribunal framed the following points for consideration-

¶69

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:38677 WP No. 10992 of 2020 C/W WP No. 22669 of 2019 WP No. 23600 of 2019

¶70

“i. Whether the impugned orders pertaining to the main dispute and also the impugned order keeping the main order in dispute under abeyance are sustainable in law?

¶71

ii. What Order?”

¶72

The Appellate Tribunal by the order dated 22.02.2000, dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondent-factory.

¶73

While answering point No.1, the Appellate Tribunal gave finding which reads as under:

¶74

“We also do not with the arguments raised by the counsel for the respondents that the Appeal is not maintainable on the ground that the Director has kept his own order under abeyance. Because, the abeyance order issued by the Director is for a limited specific purpose of filling up of the backlog vacancies. We, therefore, do not see any valid grounds to interfere with the lower court orders. Further, there is a delay of 14 days in filing the present Appeal and sworn to the affidavit by the appellant, it had been averred that the appellant factory has received the impugned

¶75

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:38677 WP No. 10992 of 2020 C/W WP No. 22669 of 2019 WP No. 23600 of 2019

¶76

order on 9.6.1997 and the modified order communicating the abeyance order unier dispute has been received on 11.06.1997. The limitation period expires on 10.8.1997. The Appeal came to be filed on 9/10-8-1997 and since these two days were Holidays on account of second Saturday and Sunday and the delay has been due to unavoided circumstances and because of administrative reasons, exigencies and discussions by the Advocate for opinion, the delay of 14 days has been occasional. After hearing the counsels for the appellant - factory and the reasons put-forth by the appellant are considered and we condone the delay.”

¶77

(Emphasis supplied)

¶78

The Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the

¶79

abeyance order issued by the Cane Commissioner is for a limited/specific purpose of filling up the backlog vacancy and therefore, it did not find any valid grounds to interfere with the Labour Court order and by the order dated 22.02.2000 dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondent-factory.

¶80

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:38677 WP No. 10992 of 2020 C/W WP No. 22669 of 2019 WP No. 23600 of 2019

¶81

The order directing regularization in favour of petitioner-applicant has attained finality way back in the year 2000. The term "abeyance" refers to a state of temporary inactivity or suspension, when an order is kept in abeyance, it does not negate the rights of the affected party. For instance, in the case of recruitment or disciplinary actions the right of the employees may still be preserved until the final decision is made. The entitlement of benefits under regularization is often contingent upon the specific terms of the regularization order. If the order is lifted, the employees be entitled to the benefits from the date of regularization order, depending on the context and stipulations as outlined in the order. The affected workman indeed would be entitled for the benefits from the date of regularization, once the abeyance is lifted, the principle being while an order is in abeyance, the rights of the employee are not extinguished, but rather held in suspension and it can be emphasized that any benefits that are due should be honored once a regularization is formally enacted. The Courts should be inclined towards

¶82

NC: 2024:KHC:38677 WP No. 10992 of 2020 C/W WP No. 22669 of 2019 WP No. 23600 of 2019

¶83

13 -

¶84

protecting the employees' right during the period of administrative uncertainty. The order of the Cane Commissioner was lifted on 31.05.2007, meaning that the respondent has to regularize the posts of the petitioner and implement the order passed by the Cane Commissioner. The Labour Court fell in error in holding that the petitioners–applicants are not entitled for regularization of services from 03.06.1997. The perusal of the impugned order suffers from perversity warranting interference by this Court and the point framed for consideration is answered in favour of the petitionersapplicants and hence, this Court pass the following:-

¶85

ORDER

¶86

i. The writ petitions are allowed .

¶87

ii. The impugned orders passed by the Labour Court is set aside, making it clear that the order of regularization dated 03.06.1997 is to be implemented in respect of petitioners.

¶88

iii. It is made clear that any amount already paid during the period from 03.06.1997 to

¶89

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:38677 WP No. 10992 of 2020 C/W WP No. 22669 of 2019 WP No. 23600 of 2019

¶90

31.05.2007 to be deducted and the balance

¶91

entitled amount by the petitioners-applicants to be paid by the respondent within a period of three months from the date of release of this order.

¶92

iv. The amount in deposit before this Court pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court to be transferred to the concerned Labour Court.

¶93

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶94

MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Manjegowda v. Hemavathi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjegowda v. Hemavathi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Ltd.

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

Sri. Mudlagiriyappa Vs Sri. Hanumaiah

Sri. Rangadhamaiah Vs Shri. Narasimhaiah

Devarajegowda @ Lokesha Vs C M Ramesh

Sri. R. M. Venkatappa Vs the Managing Director

M/S Hemavathi Sahakari Sakkere Karkhane Ltd. Vs Sri Ramachandra

Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri B Venkatesh