Dismissed

C S Mohan v. the Management of Siruguppa Sugars

Karnataka HC25 Jul 2024WP/12692/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by a trade union president challenging an industrial tribunal reference regarding worker dues and a factory closure. The Court held that earlier proceedings involving the same facts had attained finality or were already quashed, rendering the new petitions an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed as abuse of process of law; petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 50,000/- to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

C S Mohan Vs the Management of Siruguppa Sugars — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.12692/2018 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.13456/2023 (L-RES)

¶6

IN W.P. NO.12692/2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

C.S. MOHAN PRESIDENT, SUGAR MILL EMPLOYEES UNION (R) AND GSSK OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (R), NO.A-156, SRI SRINIVASA NILAYA, VIDHYANAGAR, KAREKALLAHALLY, GAURIBIDANUR TALUK – 561 208 CHICKKABALLAPUR DIST. KARNATAKA.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI C.S. MOHAN, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE MANAGEMENT OF SIRUGUPPA SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD., UNIT GAURIBIDANUR, CHICKKABALLAPUR DIST., NOW M/S.NSL SUGARS (TUNGABADRA) PVT. LTD., NO.60/1, 2^ND CROSS, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. ... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI S.B. SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN I.D.NO.155/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND GRANT THE PETITIONER THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS; QUASH THE ORDER ANNEXURE-V DATED 04.11.2017 IN I.A.NO. IN I.D. 155/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ETC.

¶16

IN W.P. No.13456/2023

¶17

BETWEEN:

¶18

SRI C.S. MOHAN PRESIDENT, SUGAR MILL EMPLOYEE UNION, A-158, VIDYANAGAR, KAREKALLAHALLI, GAURIBIDANUR – 561 208 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. REP. BY PRESIDENT

¶19

SRI C.S. MOHAN (PARTY IN PERSON)

¶20

THE SECRETARY GSSK OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,

¶21

A-158, VIDYANAGAR, KAREKALLAHALLI, GAURIBIDANUR – 561 208 CHICKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. REP. BY PRESIDENT SRI C.S. MOHAN (PARTY IN PERSON)

¶22

THE SECRETARY, GAURI SUGAR EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, (SIRIGUPPA SUGARS EMPLOYEES UNION) VIDYANAGAR , KAREKALLAHALLI, GAURIBIDANUR – 561 208 CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT. REP. BY PRESIDENT

¶23

¶24

SRI C.S. MOHAN (PARTY IN PERSON).

¶25

... PETITIONER

¶26

(BY SRI C.S. MOHAN, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶27

AND:

¶28

SIRIGUPPA SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. GAURIBIDANUR NOW N.S.L. SUIGARS (TUANGABHADRA) LIMITED, NO.60/1, 2^ND CROSS RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (LIAISON), SRI H.V. AMARNATH.

¶29

... RESPONDENT

¶30

(BY SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI S.B. SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE)

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL IN KARNATAKA BANGALORE I.D.NO.155/2011 ON THE FILE OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BANGALORE; ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDERS OR DIRECTION QUASH THE AWARD OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BANGALORE DATED 24/03/2023 IN I.D.NO.155/2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDING THERE TO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶32

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19/07/2024 FOR ORDERS AND COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

Both the writ petitions are taken up together as common questions are involved, preferred by the party-inperson- C.S. Mohan, President, Sugar Mills Employees Union (R) and GSSK Officials and Employees Association.

¶36

The relief sought in WP No.12692/2018 is as

¶37

under:

¶38

“a) Call for entire records in I.D. No.155/2011 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore and grant the petitioner the following reliefs.

¶39

b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the order Annexure “V” י dated 04-11-2017 in I.A. No. in I.D. 155/2011 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal.

¶40

c) Direct Tribunal to pass an order on I.A. No.09/2014 to give a findings as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.44349/2011 dated 28.06.2012 to record the findings that the settlement between the Management as well as workers union, if not conformity with Section 25(O) of the I.D. Act, then the Recovery certificate can be implemented.

¶41

¶42

d) Grant such other reliefs/as this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant in the circumstances of the above case to meet the ends of justice.

¶43

e) Direct the Tribunal to dispose of the I.A. No.09/2011 within one month from the date of the orders.”

¶44

The relief sought in W.P. No.13456/2023 is as

¶45

under:

¶46

“i) Call for entire records from the Industrial Tribunal in Karnataka, Bangalore I.D. No.155/2011 on the file of Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore.

¶47

ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or orders or direction quashing the award of the Industrial Tribunal Bangalore Dated: 24/03/2023 in I.D. No.155/2011 vide Annexure-A and all further proceeding there to in the interest of justice and equity

¶48

iii) The writ petition may kindly be allowed purported settlement dated: 02/04/2008 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶49

iv) And order that the workmen are entitled to the benefit flowing under Section 25(O) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947.

¶50

¶51

v) Deputy Commissioner, Chickballapur to recover the dues of the workers as per the five recovery certificates upheld by the High Court, and the above recovery certificate may be implemented and recover the same as arrears of Land Revenue with 12% interest.”

¶52

Heard the party-in-person-CS Mohan for the

¶53

petitioners and Sri K.N. Phanidra, learned senior counsel for Sri S.B. Srikanth, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶54

The point that falls for consideration before this

¶55

Court is:

¶56

“Whether the second writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the same set of facts amounts to abuse of process of law?”

¶57

The respondent-factory, which was earlier known as “Shirguppa Sugars and Chemicals Limited, Gauribidanur” (‘SSCL’ for short), subsequently, known as M/s. NSL Sugars (Tungabadra Limited). The Cooperative Society, by name Gauribidanur, Sahakari Sakkare Kharkani (GSSK), due to financial constraints, the Director of sugar and Registrar of

¶58

¶59

Cooperative Societies had passed an order appointing a liquidator under Section 73(1) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959. The liquidator, in order to realize the assets of GSSK and to pay the dues, had invited tenders for outright sale of the sugar factory along with the distillery.

¶60

A notification inviting tender was issued, the SSCL

¶61

participated and was successful and purchased the unit. The GSSK had remained closed from 14.04.2001 and there were 381 workers who had been employed in GSSK and the dues of the workers had been pending. The Commissioner of Labour and Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Recovery Officer issued recovery certificate for the recovery of dues. Since the SSCL became sick, the matter was referred to the Board of Industrial and Financial Re-Construction (herein after referred to as ‘BIFR’) and the SSCL filed form QA seeking permission for closure under section 25 (o) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the ID Act’ for short). The application for closure by the respondent-factory was rejected by issuance of endorsement dated 02.03.2002 and

¶62

¶63

03.04.2002 by the Government. The Commissioner of Labour issued one more recovery certificate towards the difference of wages to the workers. The SSCL preferred W.P. No.27052/2002 before this Court challenging the endorsements dated 02.03.2002 and 03.04.2002, the writ petition came to be rejected by this Court on 21.10.2006. Assailing the order of rejection, the writ appeal was preferred in W.A. No.2184/2006 and the endorsements dated 02.03.2002 and 03.04.2002 were set aside and the matter was remitted back to the State Government to reconsider the request of the SSCL for closure. Subsequently, by an order dated 28.09.2007, the State Government rejected the request of the respondent for closure under Section 25 (o) of the ID Act. The SSCL filed a review petition before the State Government seeking review of the order dated 28.09.2007.

¶64

During the pendency of review petition, bilateral discussions were held between the representative of the SSCL and the authorized office bearers of GSSK employees and officials-organization and all the bearers of Gauri Sugars

¶65

¶66

Employees Association (Siraguppa Sugar Employees Union), the parties arrived at an amicable settlement on 02.04.2008, wherein it was agreed that the settlement covered the recovery certificates issued by the Commissioner for Labour and Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Recovery Officer, as also all other disputes between the management and the workmen, in pursuance of which, the workmen had agreed to receive an amount as mentioned in clause 1 to 4 of settlement deed dated 02.04.2008. In terms of the settlement dated 02.04.2008, the SSCL effected payment of 379 workers. The said 379 workmen had entered into a separate individual settlement agreement. The total payment made by the SSCL to the 379 workmen was Rs.5,53,27,614/- on 02.04.2008.

¶67

It is thereafter the SSCL took over the entire liabilities by transfer of shares and the name of SSCL came to be changed as NSL, Sugars, Tungabadra Private Limited. Subsequent there to, the petitioner - C.S. Mohan, representing himself as president of GSSK officials and

¶68

10 -

¶69

employees association filed an appeal / petition before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and raised an industrial

¶70

dispute by alleging that the settlement dated 02.04.2008 was illegal and unjust and to declare the same as void. The Assistant Labour Commissioner issued notice, conciliation failed and State Government, by its order dated 25.09.2009 held that the settlement was valid, refused to refer the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication. The petitionerC.S. Mohan, preferred writ petition before this Court in W.P.

¶71

No.33702/2009 challenging refusing to refer the matter to the Labour Court. This Court allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter back to the State Government for reconsideration vide order dated 11.02.2011.

¶72

On remand, the State Government passed an order on 05.05.2011 under Section 10(1) sub clause (C) and (D) of the ID Act, deciding to refer the industrial dispute to the industrial Tribunal for decision on two questions of reference, which reads as under:

¶73

11 -

¶74

1. Whether C.S. Mohan proves that the management of SSCL had illegally obtained the signatures of the workmen on the settlement dated 02.04.2008?

¶75

Whether the management of SSCL proves that the settlement dated 02.04.2008 does not violate any law?

¶76

The Industrial Tribunal registered the dispute as ID No.155/2011. In the meanwhile, the respondent-factory filed W.P.No.40521/2011, challenging the order dated 29.09.2011, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chickaballapur District, under Section 190 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964, directing the Tashildar, Gauribidanur to recover Rs.5,69,92,530/- along with interest at the rate of 12%. Along with the writ petition, there were several other writ petitions, namely, W.P. Nos.18022/2010, 44349/2011 and 25119/2011. All the writ petitions were taken up together and disposed of by common order dated 28.06.2012. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.

¶77

No.40521/2011 preferred by the respondent – factory observed that the recovery certificates/orders shall be kept

¶78

12 -

¶79

in abeyance until the dispute in I.D. No.155/2011 stands concluded. The State Government and the liquidators filed writ appeals before this Court in W.A.Nos.8116 and 84058407/2012 and W.A. No.6370/2012, the Division Bench of this Court, disposed of in terms of the undertaking that the respondent-factory would not dispose of or alienate the assets of GSSK without the permission of the State Government and considering the affidavit of undertaking, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ appeals vide order dated 25.03.2013, by directing the petitioner to comply with the undertaking issued, in the meanwhile, the Regular First Appeal in RFA No.550/2013 filed by the liquidator also came to be dismissed on 01.04.2015. The review petition which was filed by the respondent was withdrawn, as the settlement took place and 379 workers out of 381 workers had resigned voluntarily, as the settlement occurred on 02.04.2008 and as such, the application under Section 25(o) became redundant and unnecessary and the review petition came to be withdrawn.

¶80

13 -

¶81

In the proceedings which were pending before the Industrial Tribunal in ID No.155/2011, an application I.A.No.6 came to be filed by the respondent under Section 11 of the ID Act, 1947, seeking for closure of the said dispute since the 379 workers out of 381 workers had received the settlement amount and unless the workers deposit the said amount, the matter could not be taken up. The application was heard and allowed by the order of the Tribunal dated 22.02.2014 and 379 workmen who had received the settlement amount were directed to deposit the amount received by them.

¶82

The petitioner herein filed W.P. No.303/2015 challenging the order dated 22.02.2014 passed on I.A. No.6 in ID No.155/2011. This Court vide order dated 06.07.2015 negatived the challenge made, however, extended the period of deposit of amount granted by the Tribunal by one month to 379 workmen by observing that, those of the workmen

¶83

14 -

¶84

who fail to deposit the amount shall be disentitled to prosecute the reference further.

¶85

The ID was taken up by the Tribunal as per the order passed in W.P. No.303/2015 and the counsel for the Secretary, Gowri Sugar’ Employees Association, (Siraguppa Employees Union) requested for closure of the ID stating its members were not interested in depositing the money received and prosecuting the proceedings.

¶86

It is in that background, the Tribunal vide order dated 04.11.2017 held that the 379 workmen were disentitled to continue/prosecute the reference, but, the Industrial Tribunal, however went on to hold that other 188 workmen, who have not received any compensation from the respondent, would be entitled to prosecute the reference, as per the recovery certificate issued to 567 workmen. Assailing the same, the respondent filed W.P. No.5688/2018 in so far as permitting the 188 workmen to prosecute ID No.155/2011. When the writ petition was pending, the State

¶87

15 -

¶88

Government issued a Corrigendum dated 05.03.2018, whereby, the State Government had added three additional questions to the reference. Thereafter, the respondent received one more Corrigendum order dated 17.03.2018 issued by the State Government, indicating the earlier corrigendum order dated 05.03.2018 has been withdrawn and the State Government had added two further questions for adjudication by the Tribunal in addition to the questions of reference framed under the original order dated 05.05.2011. The additional questions are stated as under:

¶89

i. Whether the president of the union on behalf of the employees Sugar Mills Employees Union @ Gowribidanur and GSSK Officials and Employees Association @ Gowribidanur (R) can establish that the management of M/s. Siraguppa Sugars and Chemicals Gowribidanur, had closed the factory on 18.02.2022 although, 567 employees are working in the factory, without obtaining

¶90

16 -

¶91

permission from the Government as per 25 (o) of the ID Act, 1947?

¶92

ii. If established for what compensation the

¶93

employees are eligible?

¶94

Assailing the same, W.P. No.24331/2018 was

¶95

preferred before this Court by the respondent-factory. In the meanwhile, W.P. No.5688/2018 assailing the order in so far as permitting 188 workmen to prosecute ID No.155/2011 was allowed and the order dated 04.11.2017 in ID in so far as permitting other 188 workmen to prosecute was set aside. Challenging the order, W.A.No.1147/2021 was preferred by the petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court observed that since the corrigendum order dated 17.03.2018 has been challenged by the respondent-factory before this Court in W.P. No.24331/2018 and the question with regard to the validity of the closure of the factory without obtaining permission from the Government under Section 25 (o) of the

¶96

ID Act is a subject matter of W.P. No.24331/2018, which is pending consideration. The Division Bench of this Court held

¶97

17 -

¶98

that since the question for consideration in the reference before the Industrial Tribunal as on 04.11.2017 was only with regard to the validity of settlement arrived between the factory and its 379 workers, the Industrial Tribunal was not justified in permitting 188 workers out of 567 workers who had not entered into the settlement, to prosecute the reference case and the State Government having realized the same, has thereafter issued corrigendum order dated 17.03.2018, validity of which is questioned by the factory in W.P. No.24331/2018. The Division Bench of this Court held that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.5688/2018 and dismissed the writ appeal with observation that the remaining 188 workmen out of 567 workmen to seek redressal of their grievances before the appropriate forum.

¶99

The petitioner also had challenged order dated 28.06.2012 passed in W.P. No.25119/2011 regarding the recovery certificates in W.A.No.6340/2011. The Division

¶100

18 -

¶101

Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition preferred by the petitioner.

¶102

W.P. No.24331/2018 assailing the corrigendum dated 17.03.2018 issued by the State Government was allowed and the order dated 17.03.2018 passed by the State Government was quashed. The petitioner in W.P. No.12692/2018 is seeking to challenge the order passed on I.A. No.6 dated 22.02.2014 directing 379 workmen to

¶103

refund the amount received under settlement. The order on I.A.No.6 dated 22.02.2014 was challenged by the petitioners in W.P. No.303/2015 and this Court vide order had dismissed

¶104

the challenge made. However, extended the period for deposit of the amount granted by the Tribunal by a period of one month by specifically observing that those of the workmen who failed to deposit the amount shall be disentitled to prosecute the reference further. The Tribunal vide order dated 04.11.2017 held that 379 workmen were

¶105

disentitled to continue/prosecute the reference. The order passed on 22.02.2014 has attained finality, the order of this

¶106

19 -

¶107

Court in W.P. No.303/2015 and the Tribunal order is that the 379 workmen having refused to deposit the amount after having received a sum in furtherance of a settlement arrived at a settlement being acceptable to 379 workmen is established and the Tribunal by order dated 04.11.2017 has held that 379 workers are disentitled to continue and prosecute the present reference. The petitioner is again assailing the very order dated 22.02.2014 and the petitionerparty-in-person is unable to substantiate as to how the second writ petition is maintainable assailing the order dated 22.02.2014, which has been confirmed in W.P. No.303/2015 and by the order of the Tribunal dated 04.11.2017 and there is no merits in W.P. No.12692/2018.

¶108

The other connected W.P. No.13456/2023 is challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 24.03.2023 in ID No.155/2011, wherein the reference dated 17.03.2018 was rejected. Reference dated 17.03.2018 reads as under:

¶109

- 20 -

¶110

“1. DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁzÀ ªÉÄB ¹gÀUÀÄ¥Àà µÀÄUÀgïì ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ«ÄPÀ�ïì °«ÄmÉqï, UËj©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è 567 PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀÄ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ PÉÊUÁjPÀ «ªÁzÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1947gÀ PÀ®A 25(N) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C£ÀÄªÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉÃ ¢£ÁAPÀ:18.02.2002 jAzÀ ªÀÄÄaÑgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ PÁ«ÄÃPÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ, µÀÄUÀgï «Ä�ï JA¥Áè¬ÄÃ¸ï AiÀÄÄ¤AiÀÄ£ï (j) UËj©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ f.J¸ï.J¸ï.PÉ. C¦ü¶AiÀÄ�ïì CAqï JA¥Áè¬ÄÃ¸ï C¸ÉÆÃ¹AiÉÄÃµÀ¤(j) UËj©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ¸Á©üÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀgÉÃ?

¶111

¶112

The order of reference dated 17.03.2018 was assailed by the respondent in W.P. No.24331/2018 and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on consideration has quashed the order of reference dated 17.03.2018, the issuance of further corrigendum. The order passed by the Tribunal dated 24.03.2023 is in view of finding recorded by this Court in W.P. No.24331/2018 and accordingly, the point of reference was answered against the petitioners.

¶113

21 -

¶114

The claim of 379 workmen has already attained finality in W.P. No.303/2015, the claim in respect of 188 workmen was assailed by the respondent-factory in W.P. No.5688/2018, which came to be allowed and confirmed in W.A. No.1147/2021. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as all the contentions of the petitioners in so far as 379 workmen and remaining 188 workmen have already attained finality and the reference order dated 17.03.2018 assailed in W.P. No.24331/2018 was set aside by the CoOrdinate Bench of this Court and the point framed for consideration is answered against the petitioner, holding that the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the same set of facts preferred by the party-inperson is absolute an abuse of process of law, warranting this Court to impose cost on the petitioner.

¶115

For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following:

¶116

22 -

¶117

ORDER

¶118

Writ petitions are dismissed as devoid of merits with cost of Rs.50,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within four weeks from the date of release of this order.

¶119

SD/JUDGE

¶120

S*/SBS

C S Mohan v. the Management of Siruguppa Sugars

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C S Mohan v. the Management of Siruguppa Sugars

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 P S Kempaiah Vs Union of India

Managemnt of M/S Aisin Nttf Pvt. Ltd. Vs Workmen of M/S Aisin Nttf Pvt. Ltd.

Workmen of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Vs Bruhut Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Govinda Bin Late K v Krishnappa Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri Mallikarjuna Vs M/S Adc India Communications Ltd.

N B Ravi Vs the Divisional Controller