Allowed

West Coast Paper Mills Company Ltd., v. the Commissioner of Labour in Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2024WP/37014/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Labour Commissioner permitted a union to prosecute the paper mill management for allegedly denying a union seat on the joint negotiating committee. The High Court held the election was conducted by the Commissioner's returning officer, not the management, and sanction was granted without application of mind; it quashed the permission.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 14.06.2016 of Labour Commissioner granting prosecution permission set aside; proceedings by respondent-union would not survive.

West Coast Paper Mills Company Ltd., Vs the… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:35697 WP No. 37014 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 37014 OF 2016 (L-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

WEST COAST PAPER MILLS COMPANY LTD., HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT CHANDRAKIRAN 4TH FLOOR, 10-A, KASTURBA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY SRI. S.N. PATIL, VICE PRESIDENT (H.R) AND FACTORY MANAGER.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. S.N. MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR IN KARNATAKA KARMIKA BHAVANA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 029.

¶13

THE PRESIDENT, DANDELI KARMIKA SANGHA, VISHWA SHARMA CHETAN, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI - 580 030.

¶14

THE PRESIDENT, KARMIKA SENA, C/O. "A" HOSTEL BUILDING, BANGUR NAGAR, DANDELI - 581 325.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:35697 WP No. 37014 of 2016

¶16

THE PRESIDENT, DANDELI PAPER MILL NOWKARARA SANGHA, VITTAL NIVAS BUILDING, TOWNSHIP, DANDELI - 581 325.

¶17

THE PRESIDENT,

¶18

PAPER MILL MAZDOOR SANGH, C/O PREMANAND BANERJEE, DRT 257, BANGUR NAGAR, DANDELI - 581 325.

¶19

THE PRESIDENT,

¶20

WEST COATS PAPER MILL EMPLOYEES UNION, OFFICE: NEAR BAMBOO GATE, BARCHI ROAD, DANDELI-581 325.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. K. MANJUNATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. NAGABHUSHAN H.K, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (ABSENT); SRI. V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R4, R5 AND R6 ARE PLACED EX-PARTE VIDE ORDER DATED 06.02.2018)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 LABOUR COMMISSIONER DATED 14.06.2016 PASSED IN ANNEXURE-R TO THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35697 WP No. 37014 of 2016

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 14.06.2016 passed by respondent No.1-Labour Commissioner at Annexure-R according permission to the President Dandeli Karmika Sangh to initiate legal proceedings against the Management-M/s West Coast Paper Mills Company Ltd., the management is before this Court in this writ petition.

¶29

Heard and perused the material on record.

¶30

The Trade Unions who were operating in the

¶31

year 1991, which includes respondent Nos.2, 5, 6 and the petitioner-management entered into a settlement dated 03.04.1991. The settlement pertains to deciding the representatives of the Unions through conducting secret ballot for joint negotiating committee, it is agreed that the returning officer would be appointed by the Commissioner of Labour, Bangalore on the joint request of the petitionermanagement and the Trade Unions. The clause 4 of the settlement reads as under:

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:35697 WP No. 37014 of 2016

¶33

"Clause 4: "The JNC will have only seven representatives, representing labour and such representations by Unions securing more than 15% votes at the rate of 1 (one) representative for every 15% votes polled. Last, that is 7th (seventh) seat will be given to the Union having residual votes less than 15% subject to a minimum of 10% and which has the highest in the residual list. One of the seven representatives of the Joint Negotiating Committee will be its Chairman be elected by the committee."

¶34

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

¶35

submits that the returning officer, who was appointed by respondent No.1 held the election and announced the results as per Annexure-E, and that the petitioner had absolutely no role to play in the entire election procedures, whether the results were announced in terms of clause 4 of the settlement dated 03.04.1991 or otherwise is not for the petitioner to question. That respondent No.1-Labour Commissioner has failed to appreciate the clause 4 of the settlement and has wrongly come to the conclusion that the management has failed to give representation to the union which obtained highest residual vote and thereby,

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:35697 WP No. 37014 of 2016

¶37

violated clause 4 of the settlement. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the petitioner-management was nowhere involved in the conduct of election and the petitioner cannot alter the results announced by the returning officer. Respondent No.1-Labour Commissioner without application of mind, has blindly sanctioned the prosecution of the petitioner without analyzing as to whether the petitioner could be held liable even assuming there is violation of clause 4 of the settlement dated 03.04.1991.

¶38

The point that falls for consideration before this Court is that:

¶39

"Whether respondent No.1-Labour Commissioner was justified in according permission to prosecute the petitioner in the present facts and circumstances of the case?"

¶40

As stated supra clause 4 of the settlement dated 03.04.1991 is that the Joint Negotiating Committee (‘JNC’) will have only seven representatives, representing labour and such representations by Unions securing more

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:35697 WP No. 37014 of 2016

¶42

than 15% votes at the rate of 1 (one) representative for every 15% votes polled. Last, that is 7^th (seventh) seat will be given to the Union having residual votes less than 15% subject to a minimum of 10% and which has the highest in the residual list. One of the seven representatives of the JNC will be its Chairman be elected by the committee. The returning officer who was appointed by respondent No.1 conducted election and announced the result indicating as under:

¶43

The number of Voters polled on 09.11.2014: 2643

¶44

Sl *No.*	*Name of the Union*	No of *votes* *secured*	*Percentage* *with* *reference* to *total* *votes* *polled*	*Proporti* *onate* *represe* *ntation* as *per* *agreem* *ent* *dated* *03.04.1*
1	Dandeli Karmikara Sangh, Dandeli	335	12.67	-
2	Dandeli Paper Mill Nowkarara Sangh, Dandeli	189	7.15	-
3	Karmika Sena, Dandeli	1766	66.82	4
4	Paper Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Dandeli	100	3.78	-
5	The West Coast Paper Mill Employees Union, Dandeli	244	9.23	-
6	In valid	9

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:35697 WP No. 37014 of 2016

¶46

The result and the entire election process were

¶47

conducted by the returning officer as is evident from the material on record. Respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order has observed that the Karmikara Sangh has not been given one seat by the election officer in terms of clause 4 of the settlement and the same is clear violation of the terms of the settlement dated 03.04.1991 , the Labour Court, having observed that the election officer has not given one seat to Karmikara Sangh, goes on an assumption that the violation of clause 4 of the settlement is by the petitioner-management, who is nowhere involved in the conduct of election, the order passed by respondent No.1-Labour Commissioner, granting permission to respondent No.2 to prosecute the petitioner-management is without application of mind, the sanction of prosecution is a serious matter and sanction of prosecution cannot be granted by merely asking, the sanctioning authority while sanctioning prosecution should go into the entire matter and satisfy himself whether a prima facie case has been made out and there exists any ground for granting

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:35697 WP No. 37014 of 2016

¶49

sanction for prosecution. The Apex Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others¹ has observed that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.

¶50

The ground by the respondents for seeking

¶51

permission to prosecute the petitioner is that, it had secured more than 10% of votes in the poll and as such, on a member of the Unions should have been approved to the negotiating committee in terms of clause 4 of the settlement dated 03.04.1991. Respondent No.2 has not made out any ground for violation of clause 4 of the settlement dated 03.04.1991 by the petitionermanagement. Respondent No.1, without application of mind and on the presumption that the management could have declared one (1) person as elected and take them to the negotiation committee, has come to a wrong conclusion and granted permission to prosecute, the

¶52

1 1998 (5) SCC 749

¶53

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:35697 WP No. 37014 of 2016

¶54

impugned order passed by respondent No.1 warrants interference by this Court and the point framed for consideration is answered in favour of the petitionermanagement and this Court pass the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶57

ii. The impugned order passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-R is hereby set aside and consequently, if any proceedings have been initiated by the respondent-Union, the same would not survive for consideration.

¶58

In light of disposal of the writ petition, pending IA's, if any, would not survive for consideration.

¶59

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶60

AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT: BHK

West Coast Paper Mills Company Ltd., v. the Commissioner of Labour in Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

West Coast Paper Mills Company Ltd., v. the Commissioner of Labour in Karnataka

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

Smt Sharadhamma Vs the Managing Director

The Management of M/S Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs Sri Narendra

Karnataka Housing Board Vs Ramanna v

Parle Workers Union Vs Government of Karnataka

Mohammed Sajjad Ali Vs Managing Director

Dakshina Kannada Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. Vs Sri J Keshava