Partly allowed

M/S Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2024WP/12702/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by the factory management and dismissed one filed by the workers' union. The court set aside the government orders dated 10.04.2012 that referred the dispute regarding a strike as a 'lockout' and prohibited the lockout, holding the government's characterization unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

W.P. No.12702/2012 allowed; W.P. No.28183/2013 dismissed; Impugned government orders dated 10.04.2012 set aside.

M/S Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Government of… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.12702/2012 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.28183/2013 (L-RES)

¶6

IN W.P. No.12702/2012

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. PARLE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 15, K.M. STONE, TUMKUR ROAD, (N.H. NO.4), BANGALORE – 560 073, REP. BY SRI B. BALACHANDRA RAI, FACTORY MANAGER.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI C.K. SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.C. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,

¶13

VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001

¶14

BY TIS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶15

PARLE WORKERS UNION, REG. NO.D.R.T. (B-3)10/2010-11 25, 4^TH CROSS, BYRAPPA LAYOUT,

¶16

NAGASHETTY HALLI,

¶17

BANGALORE – 560 094

¶18

REP. BY K.S. SUBRAMANYA PRESIDENT. ... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI K.S. SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS LEADING TO THE PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS; ORDER OF REFERENCE DATED 10.04.2012, PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶21

¶22

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, VIDE ANNEXURE-O; ORDER DATED 10.04.2012, PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, LABOUR DEPARTMENT PROHIBITING LOCK-OUT VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND ETC.

¶23

IN W.P. No.28183/2013

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

PARLE WORKERS UNION 25, 4^TH CROSS, BYRAPPA LAYOUT, NAGASHETTIHALLI, BANGALORE – 56O 094 REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY SRI KARIBASAPPA.

¶26

... PETITIONER

¶27

(BY SRI K.S. SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001 BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶30

PARLE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 15KM STONE, TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 073 REPRESENTED BY SRI N. SURESH, FACTORY MANAGER. ... RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL HCGP FOR R-1; SRI C.K. SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.C. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PORTION OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 10.04.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A CONTAINING ISSUE NO.2 OF THE ORDER OF REFERENCE. THIS COURT MAY ALSO BE PLEASED TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED PORTION VIZ., STRIKE BY THE WORKMEN MENTIONED IN THE PREAMBLE OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 10.04.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND REPLACE IT BY THE WORDS LOCKOUT OF THE FACTORY BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT MANAGEMENT.

¶33

¶34

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 13/02/2024 FOR ORDERS AND COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

W.P. No.12702/2012 is preferred by the management-

¶37

M/s. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. assailing the order dated 10.04.2012 at Annexure-O and order dated 10.04.2012 at Annexure-P passed by respondent No.1 prohibiting the lockout.

¶38

W.P. No.28183/2013 is preferred by the Parle Workers Union assailing the order dated 10.04.2012

¶39

containing issue No.2 of the order of reference and seeking a direction to delete the impugned portion viz., strike by the workmen mentioned in the preamble of the Government Order dated 10.04.2012 at Annexure-A and replace it by the words “lockout” of the factory by the management.

¶40

Facts are that the petitioner is a registered company under the Companies Act and the factory located at Bangalore was manufacturing the biscuits, confectionary and printing (wrappers). The factory had 259

¶41

¶42

permanent workmen and had recognized respondent No.2trade union for the purpose of collective bargaining. It appears that respondent No.2 submitted a fresh charter of demand, on 17.08.2011, the Vice President of respondent No.2-Union one Hanumappa was kept under suspension pending enquiry for the charges of abusing and threatening the personnel officer and on the same day, the office bearers entered the production shop floor and caused extensive damage to the products in protest against the suspension of the Vice President. The petitioner-management approached the Civil Court restraining the defendants (workmen) from threatening, intimidating and harassing the employees within the premises of the factory compound and several other reliefs. The Civil Court passed an order restraining the defendants from causing any damage to the property, restrained the defendants from threatening, intimidating and harassing the employees. However, the defendants were permitted to hold demonstration in a peaceful and nonviolent manner in the shed already put up by them abutting

¶43

¶44

the compound wall. The management filed MFA No.1642/2012 and this Court observed that “from 17.08.2011 onwards the workmen after entering the factory by marking attendance, did not start the work but remained inside the factory upto 20.08.2011” since the production stopped abruptly without following SOP, there was a serious safety threat which was lying on production line.

¶45

The management had a meeting with the President of the Union in the presence of the office bearers and the union did not change their stand. The management thought it appropriate that the workmen should give an undertaking as there was a serious threat to food safety, a notice was displayed to the effect that the workman before reporting for duty should give undertaking in the format. Out of 257 workmen, 57 workmen reported to duty by signing individual undertaking.

¶46

The Civil Court granted temporary injunction as stated supra and in spite of restraining the defendants, and

¶47

¶48

clarifying to the government about continuous strike which was supported by a Court order, the Government referred the following points for adjudication at Annexures-O and P, which read as under:

¶49

Annexure-O:

¶50

“DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁzÀ ªÉÄB ¥Á¯Éð ¥ÁæqÀPïÖ ¥Éæ�Ê�.° ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ F ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄµÀÌgÀ ºÀÆrgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ GAmÁzÀ PÉÊUÁjPÁ «ªÁzÀ. EªÀgÀ ªÀÄzsÉå F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À §UÉÎ PÉÊUÁjPÁ «ªÁzÀ«gÀÄªÀÅzÁV PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ¥ÀnÖgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ £ÁåAiÀÄ ¤tðAiÀÄPÁÌV . «ªÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ CUÀvÀåªÉAzÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¹zÉ

¶51

DzÀÝjAzÀ PÉÊUÁjPÁ «ªÁzÀUÀ¼À C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 1947 (PÉÃAzÁæ¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 14, 1947) gÀ 10£ÉÃ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ (1) £ÉÃ G¥À-¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ (¹)/(r) RAqÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀzÀj «ªÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀÄ ¤tðAiÀÄPÁÌV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÉÆ¼ÀUÁV wÃ¥Àð£ÀÄß M¦à¸À®Ä 1£ÉÃ C¥ÀgÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ E°èUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÉ.

¶52

ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄB-

¶53

DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁzÀ ªÉÄB ¥Á¯Éð ¥ÁæqÀPïÖ ¥Éæ�Ê�.° ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ, ¥Á¯Éð ªÀPÀðgïì AiÀÄÆ¤AiÀÄ£ï, £ÀA.25, 4£ÉÃ CqÀØgÀ¸ÉÛ, ¨sÉÊgÀ¥Àà ¯ÉÃOmï, £ÁUÀ±ÉnÖºÀ½î ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¦¹zÀAvÉ DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÀÄ ¥Á¯Éð ¥ÁæqÀPïÖ ¥Éæ�Ê�.°, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀB 22-08-2011 jAzÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ ©ÃUÀªÀÄÄzÉæ WÀÉÆÃ¶¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄävÀªÉÃ?

¶54

¶55

¥Á¯Éð ªÀPÀðgïì AiÀÄÆ¤AiÀÄ£ï, £ÀA.23, 4£ÉÃ CqÀØgÀ¸ÉÛ, ¨sÉÊgÀ¥Àà ¯ÉÃOmï, £ÁUÀ±ÉnÖºÀ½î ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀB 22-08-2011 jAzÀ CªÀiÁ£ÀwÛzÀ°ènÖgÀÄªÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉÃrPÉ ElÄÖ ªÀÄÄµÀÌgÀ £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄävÀªÉÃ?

¶56

3. ºÁVzÀÝ°è, ¸ÀzÀj PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÉÌ CºÀðgÀÄ?”

¶57

Annexure-P:

¶58

“DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁzÀ ªÉÄB ¥Á¯Éð ¥ÁæqÀPïÖ ¥Éæ�Ê�.° ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀB 22-8-2011 gÀAzÀÄ ©ÃUÀªÀÄÄzÉæ WÀÉÆÃ¶¹ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 300PÀÆÌ ºÉZÀÄÑ PÁ«ÄðPÀjUÉ PÉ®¸À ¤gÁPÀj¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ GAmÁzÀ PÉÊUÁjPÁ «ªÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀÄ ¤tðAiÀÄPÁÌV 1£ÉÃ C¥ÀgÀ PÁ«ÄðP £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, E°èUÉ ¸ÀPÁðj DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉåB PÁE 175 LrJA 2012, ¢£ÁAPÀB 10-04-2012gÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶59

DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁzÀ ªÉÄB ¥Á¯Éð ¥ÁæqÀPïÖ ¥Éæ�Ê�.°, vÀÄªÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀB 22-8-2011 gÀAzÀÄ ©ÃUÀªÀÄÄzÉæ WÀÉÆÃ¶¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ GAmÁzÀ PÉÊUÁjPÁ «ªÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄß ±ÁAwAiÀÄÄvÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ËºÁzÀðvÉ¬ÄAzÀ PÉÊUÁjPÁ ±ÁAwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÁ¥ÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÀ zÀÈ¶Ö¬ÄAzÀ PÉÊUÁjPÁ «ªÁzÀUÀ¼À PÁAiÉÄÝ 1947 PÀ®A 10 (3) gÀrAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹, vÀPÀët¢AzÀ ZÁjUÉ §gÀÄªÀAvÉ DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ«ÄðPÀ ªÀUÀðzÀªÀjUÉ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀ µÀgÀwÛUÉÆ¼Àî¥ÀlÄÖ ©ÃUÀªÀÄÄzÉæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉÆ½¸À®Ä DzÉÃ²¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶60

¸ÀzÀj PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄ PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀÄ ¸ÁÜªÀgÀzÀ GvÁàzÀ£À ZÀlÄªÀnPÉUÀ½UÉ . AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ zsÀPÉÌAiÀiÁUÀzÀAvÉ PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ

¶61

¶62

DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÀÄ ©ÃUÀªÀÄÄzÉæ vÉgÀªÀÅUÉÆ½¹zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ J¯Áè . PÁ«ÄPÀjUÀÆ PÉ®¸À ¤ÃqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ

¶63

PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÁdgÁzÁUÀ DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ ªÀÄÄZÀÑ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ «£ÀB AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¥ÀÆªÀð¨sÁ« µÀgÀvÀÛ£ÀÄß «¢ü¸ÀzÉÃ PÁ«ÄðPÀjUÉ PÉ®¸À ¤ÃqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.”

¶64

(emphasis supplied)

¶65

In the preamble of the order of reference, the appropriate Government has formed the opinion that the dispute arose because of the strike resorted to by the workmen and therefore, the same requires adjudication.

¶66

a. Whether the management was justified in

¶67

declaring lockout from 22.08.2011 as alleged by the trade union?

¶68

b. Whether the Parle Workers union was justified in demanding to take back the striking workers who were under suspension?

¶69

Respondent No.1-government has also passed

¶70

another order dated 10.04.2012 under Section 10(3) of the ID Act assuming that the management has declared lockout

¶71

¶72

and hence, prohibited, purported lockout. In the produced waste biscuits to the extent of 25%, the absenteeism rate was 33% and there was a total non-cooperation on shop floor.

¶73

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Civil Court had restrained the workmen of the union from holding strike and the said order was modified by this Court on demonstrating of strike within a radius of 50 meters of the factory premises was prohibited. It is the contention of the petitioner that the workmen continued their stay in strike in the premises and the government though framed an opinion that there is a strike without even considering the nature of dispute mechanically states that it is a lockout. Learned counsel would contend that at no point of time, the petitioner-management had declared lockout. Learned counsel would bring to the notice of this Court during the pendency of this writ petition, the management filed an application under Section 25(O) (1) of the ID Act seeking permission for the closure of the factory, as it experienced

¶74

10 -

¶75

continual labour unrest, production loss. Learned counsel would contend that the writ petition on the earlier occasion was allowed, holding that the impugned orders at Annexures-O and P were not justified and respondent No.2 filed a review petition seeking to review the order on the technical ground that the respondent was not heard at the time of passing the final order and the review petition came to be allowed.

¶76

Pursuant to the recall of the order in the writ

¶77

petition, respondent No.2-union has filed connected writ petition seeking to delete the impugned portion, i.e., strike mentioned in the preamble, on the ground that it is a technical mistake. Learned counsel would submit that the government has accorded approval to close the factory w.e.f. 09.09.2013 and the factory has been closed and all the benefits and compensation, including statutory benefits, have been settled.

¶78

11 -

¶79

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

¶80

respondent-union would contend that the order of reference containing issue No.2 is erroneously stated as ‘strike’ and the industrial dispute is regarding ‘lockout’.

¶81

The impugned order at Annexure-O refers to the fact that there was a strike and the orders before the Civil Court and this Court would clearly indicate that there was a strike in the factory premises from 22.08.2011 and the Government came to the conclusion that the management has declared lockout was contrary to the order passed by the Civil Court and this Court. The fact remains that the petitioner-management has closed the factory w.e.f. 09.09.2013 and assailing the said order, the respondentunion has preferred writ petition before this Court which is pending consideration. The State Government cannot mechanically refer the matter for dispute unless it forms an opinion as to whether there was a dispute, which requires to be referred for adjudication and having framed an opinion of strike, the reference of adjudication in declaring lockout is

¶82

12 -

¶83

highly unsustainable and the contention of the union that ‘strike’ mentioned is technical mistake is highly unsustainable

¶84

and without any basis. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶85

ORDER

¶86

i. W.P. No.12702/2012 filed by the petitioner-

¶87

management is hereby allowed.

¶88

ii. W.P. No.28183/2013 filed by the respondentunion is hereby dismissed.

¶89

ii. The impugned orders passed by respondent No.1 at Annexures-O and P dated 10.04.2012 is hereby

¶90

set aside.

¶91

SD/JUDGE

¶92

MBM

M/S Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of Karnataka

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

Mr Jayapal K M Vs the Management

C.B. Nanjundappa Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Union Bank of India Vs Sri S N Balasubramanian

Sri Annegowda Vs M/S J K Tyres and Industries Ltd.

T Y Subramani Vs the Divisional Controller

M/S. Kalpa Electrical Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii