Allowed

M/S Genpact India Pvt. Ltd., v. Mr R N Narasimha Murthy (Major)

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2024WP/17178/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition assailing a Labour Court award that set aside a termination order. The Court remitted the matter to the Labour Court to determine if the respondent company is exempt from the Standing Orders Act under a specific Government notification, rather than deciding the merits of the termination.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed, the Labour Court award was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration regarding the notification dated 25.01.2014.

M/S Genpact India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Mr R N… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44988 WP No. 17178 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 17178 OF 2018 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S GENPACT INDIA PVT. LTD., NO.99, SURYA PARK ELECTRONICS CITY, BANGALORE - 560 100 REPERSENETD BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER - LEGAL MR. DAMODAR SHENOY KUMBLE (MAJOR) …PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR J., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

MR R.N.NARASIMHA MURTHY (MAJOR) S/O LATE SRI M.NARAYANA, MAJOR, NO.91/1, I FLOOR, 2^ND MAIN, NEAR 10^TH CROSS, V.K.BLOCK, GOVINDARAJ NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 040.

¶13

(BY SRI.SACHIDANANDA K., ADVOCATE)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED: 02.12.2017 PASSED BY THE THIRD ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.17/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-O AND HOLD THAT THE RESPONDENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY RELIEF.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:44988 WP No. 17178 of 2018

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the award dated 02.12.2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, III Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru in Reference

¶22

No.17/2013.

¶23

For the sake convenience, parties are referred as per their ranking before the Labour Court.

¶24

It is the case of the First party that, he was

¶25

appointed as Senior Process Executive on probation for six months with effect from 20.01.2005 by the second party and thereafter, the petitioner was promoted in the service. It is also stated that as per the policy of the second party, the management has to appraise the performance of its workmen twice in a year as per their rating performance for the year 2011 in respect of the First party connotes as

¶26

“meets expectations”. It is also stated by the First party that, in order to victimize the First party, the second party

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44988 WP No. 17178 of 2018

¶28

has issued mail, giving rating as First party “needs improvement”. It is stated by the First party that, till the receipt of the annual appraisal report dated 12.03.2012, the First party was unaware about his performance/ appraisal report and as such, he has approached the higher officers of the second party and despite the same, the second party has issued Bench notice dated 26.06.2012 by granting further period and thereafter, the First party has been terminated by order dated 30.12.2012. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the First party has approached the government seeking reference and pursuant to the order dated 14.10.2014 by the Government of Karnataka, referred the matter to the Labour Court in Reference No.17/2013.

¶29

On service of notice, the second partyManagement entered appearance and filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is the specific case of the second party that the annual assessment report of the First party reflects as

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:44988 WP No. 17178 of 2018

¶32

“needs improvement rating (NI)” which is the lowest category of rating in the second party-Management and further, the customers of the second party had expressed dissatisfaction in relation to the First party’s performance and therefore, Bench notice was issued to the First party informing him to find an alternative job either within the company or elsewhere. However, the said Bench notice was disregarded by the First party and as such, the second party has issued the order of termination dated 30.12.2012 and accordingly, the second party sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶33

Based on the pleadings on record, the Labour Court formulated the issues for its consideration. In order to establish the case, the First party was examined as WW1 and has produced 23 documents and same were marked as Ex.W1 to W23. The second party was examined as MW1 and has produced 19 documents and the same were marked as Ex.M1 to M19. The Labour Court, after considering the material on record, by order dated

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44988 WP No. 17178 of 2018

¶35

02.12.2017 (Annexure-O) allowed the claim petition in part by setting aside the order of termination dated 30.12.2012 and further, directed the second party to reinstate the First party into service subject to certain conditions. Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 02.12.2017 passed by the Labour Court, the second party has presented this writ petition.

¶36

I have heard Sri. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Sachidananda K., learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶37

Sri. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that, the finding recorded by the Labour Court particularly with regard as to not conducting enquiry as well as arrived at conclusion as to the fact that the second party has no certified standing orders in their company which is contrary to law and further, he invited the attention of the Court to the letter dated 26.06.2012 (Annexure-F) as well as the notification

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44988 WP No. 17178 of 2018

¶39

dated 25.01.2014 (Annexure-J) issued by the Government of Karnataka and submitted that the petitioner, being a IT company is exempted from the applicability of Industrial Employments (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (Annexure-J) and contended that the finding recorded by the Labour Court has to be interfered with.

¶40

Per contra, Sri. Sachidananda K., learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and contended that, the order of termination dated 30.12.2012 issued by the second party is contrary to law and no enquiry has been conducted before removing the First party and accordingly, sought to justify the impugned order.

¶41

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, without going into the merits of the case, as argued by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:44988 WP No. 17178 of 2018

¶43

examined the paragraph No.18 of the impugned award wherein, the Labour Court having taken note of the fact that the second party does not have standing orders of their company and as such, arrived at the conclusion that the First party has been removed without conducting enquiry and accordingly, passed the impugned award.

¶44

On careful examination of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the notification dated 25.01.2014 (Annexure-J), though it was argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/First party herein that the second partyManagement has constituted a Grievance Redressal Committee, however, there is no material on record to answer the question whether the notification dated 25.01.2014 (Annexure-J) is applicable to the second party-Management. In that view of the matter, the said aspect needs to be considered by the Labour Court and accordingly, unless the finding recorded by the Labour Court to say that the second party is exempted from

¶45

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:44988 WP No. 17178 of 2018

¶46

standing orders and that has to be tested in the way of the notification dated 25.01.2014 (Annexure-J). In that view

¶47

of the matter, the said aspects needs to be considered by the Labour Court afresh and therefore, it is a fit case to remand the matter to the Labour Court to consider the observation made above in the light of the notification dated 25.01.2014. In the result, I have passed the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶50

ii. The Award dated 02.12.2017 in Reference

¶51

No.17/2013 on the file of the III Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru (Annexure-O) is set aside.

¶52

iii. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above.

¶53

iv. Parties are directed to adduce any further evidence in the matter, if so advised.

¶54

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:44988 WP No. 17178 of 2018

¶55

v. It is made clear that, this Court has not considered the finding recorded by the Labour Court on merits except the applicability of the notification dated 25.01.2014 (Annexure-J).

¶56

vi. The Labour Court is directed to dispose the Reference at the earliest within outer limit of one year from the receipt of this order. In order to avoid further delay in the matter, as the parties are represented through their learned counsel, parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 02.12.2024 at 11.00 am without awaiting further notice.

¶57

vii. The First party is entitled for the wages till the conclusion of the proceedings in the Labour Court.

¶58

SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH)

¶59

JUDGE

¶60

BN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

M/S Genpact India Pvt. Ltd., v. Mr R N Narasimha Murthy (Major)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Genpact India Pvt. Ltd., v. Mr R N Narasimha Murthy (Major)

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. Gangamarappa Vs Banglaore Development Authority

M/S Karnataka Beedi Industries Vs Government of Karnataka

Sri Narayanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Tejraj Gulecha Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Mohammed Ayub Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Lingaraju Vs State of Karnataka