Disposed

H.M.T. Karimikara Sangha v. the Management of H.M.T. Ltd.

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2024WP/43866/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A trade union challenged an Industrial Tribunal award rejecting retrospective promotion of a workman from WG-VI to PS-II grade, relying on a comparable case of retrospective promotion granted in 1997. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that promotion was due only prospectively, since retrospective promotion was abolished by office order dated 26.12.2002.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; management directed to consider representation Annexure-F12 seeking WS-I option with retrospective effect and pass orders within ten weeks.

H.M.T. Karimikara Sangha Vs the Management… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:6205 WP No. 43866 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.43866 OF 2018 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

H.M.T. KARIMIKARA SANGHA JALAHALLI, H.M.T. POST, BANGALORE – 560 013, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. ... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI S.B. MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE MANAGEMENT OF H.M.T. LTD., RPT. BY JOINT GENERAL MANAGER (HRM) BANGALORE COMPLEX, JALAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 013. ... RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI M.S. NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE, IN I.D.NO.20/09; QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 31.03.2016 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE, IN I.D.NO.20/09 AT ANNEXURE-H IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF THE PROMOTION OF THE WORKMAN B. GOPALAKRISHNA FROM WG-VI TO PS-II GRADE WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND ETC.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:6205 WP No. 43866 of 2018

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The question falls for consideration before this Court

¶19

is:

¶20

“Whether the promotion of the workman – G.Gopala Krishna from one cadre 6 (WG6) to pay scale II – PS II Grade is justified?”

¶21

Heard Sri S.B.Mukkannappa, learned counsel

¶22

for the petitioner and Sri M.S.Narayana, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶23

The reference by the State Government under

¶24

Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act” for short) the points to adjudicate is as under:

¶25

“1. DqÀ½vÀ ªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁzÀ ªÉÄB ºÉZï.JA.n. ªÉÄ¶£ï lÆ¯ïì °«ÄmÉqï, eÁ®ºÀ½î, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560 013, EªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ PÁ«ÄðPÀjUÉ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ¥ÉmÉiÁæÃ¯ï ¨sÀvÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjµÀÌj¸ÀzÉ C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¥ÀjµÀÌj¹ vÁgÀvÀªÀÄå ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ ªÉÃvÀ£À §rÛAiÀÄ°è vÁgÀvÀªÀÄå ¤Ãw C£ÀÄ¸Àj¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄävÀªÉÃ?

¶26

ºÁV®è¢zÀÝ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj PÁ«ÄðPÀjUÉ ¹UÀ§ºÀÅzÁzÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÉÃ£ÀÄ?

¶27

PÁ«ÄðPÀ ²æÃ.UÉÆÃ¥Á® PÀÈµÀÚ EªÀjUÉ WG-VI jAzÀ PS-II UÉæÃqïUÉ §rÛ ¤gÁPÀj¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀÄ¸ÀªÀÄävÀªÉ?

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:6205 WP No. 43866 of 2018

¶29

ºÁV®è¢zÀÝ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj PÁ«ÄðPÀjUÉ ¹UÀ§ºÀÅzÁzÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÉÃ£ÀÄ?”

¶30

The petitioner – trade union is before this Court

¶31

insofar as it relates to rejection of the claim of promotion

¶32

of the workman from Grade 6 to PS II Grade with retrospective effect. The claim statement is filed seeking prayer No.3, which reads as under:

¶33

“3. Order to promote Shri Gopalakrishna from Wage Grade-6 to PS-2 retrospectively with effect from 1.1.2002 and grant him further promotion to the post of PS-3 on completion of six years in the promoted post retrospectively from 1.1.2008 and grant him all monitory benefits flowing from such grant of promotion.”

¶34

The respondent – management filed counter statement, inter alia, contending that the promotion policy is governed by the Government Order dated 27.01.2006 and as per the policy, the question conferring the promotion with retrospective effect does not arise. It is contended that the reference made by the Government is, whether the denial of promotion is justified and the claim statement is filed seeking retrospective effect from 2008

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:6205 WP No. 43866 of 2018

¶37

since similarly placed employee, one Nagaraj was conferred upon retrospective promotion with effect from 01.07.1993.

¶38

The Tribunal by the impugned order held that, as per the promotion policy dated 27.10.1989, the workman is entitled for promotion, but not with

¶39

retrospective effect.

¶40

The fact reveals that the petitioner was offered promotion from WG-VI to PS-II in the year 2002, but the petitioner – sangha requested the respondent – management to keep the promotion of the workman in abeyance till he completes his tenure as the member of the petitioner – sangha having position of General Secretary. The respondent – management issued a letter to the petitioner stating that as per the procedure, once an employee is issued a promotion order, either she/he has to either accept it or reject and any promotion order cannot be kept in abeyance. The foundation of claiming retrospective promotion was on the basis of the promotion

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:6205 WP No. 43866 of 2018

¶42

given by respondent – management with retrospective effect to an employee named T.R. Nagaraj who had sought for keeping his promotion in abeyance in the year 1993 and subsequently, in the year 1997, the said employee was given promotion with retrospective effect from 1993 and that the Tribunal has failed to consider the said aspect and has erroneously and arbitrarily rejected the claim of the petitioner-workman.

¶43

The reason assigned by the Tribunal for rejecting the claim of the petitioner-workman is that T.R. Nagaraj was given retrospective effect in the year 1997, however, in light of the office order dated 26.12.2002, which came into existence, the retrospective promotion was totally abolished and the petitioner – G. Gopalakrishna was elected as a General Secretary and the incidence have taken place after 26.12.2002. The promotion policy of the company and promotion proceedings have been intimated to the petitioner stating that keeping the promotion in abeyance is not possible

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:6205 WP No. 43866 of 2018

¶45

and the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the grant of promotion retrospectively from 01.01.2008 is not sustainable in light of the office order dated 26.12.2002 and the communication of the management dated 21.11.2002.

¶46

It is relevant to note that the office order dated 26.12.2002 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to keep the promotion in abeyance has stood un-assailed. The perusal of the impugned order indicates that the Labour Court, however, held that the petitioner is entitled for promotion as per the promotion policy dated 27.10.1989 without retrospective effect. The petitioner status as an office bearer of the trade union from 2002 to 2006 during his PS-II promotion period and the management has promoted the petitioner from WG-VI to WS-I prospectively from 01.01.2017 in light of the letter of the petitioner union dated 14.10.2017 requesting the respondentmanagement to consider the promotion of G.Gopalakrishna from WG-VI to WG-I.

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:6205 WP No. 43866 of 2018

¶48

The Tribunal considering all these aspects has rightly held that the petitioner is entitled for promotion

¶49

prospectively. The impugned order of the Tribunal is justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has submitted representation at Annexure – F12 to the management to WS-I option for promotion with retrospective effect and the same is not considered by the management and the management to consider the representation of the petitioner seeking WS-I option for promotion with retrospective effect from 2008 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a span of ten weeks from the date of release of this order. With the said observation, writ petition stands disposed.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

H.M.T. Karimikara Sangha v. the Management of H.M.T. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.M.T. Karimikara Sangha v. the Management of H.M.T. 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 P S Surendra Ithal @ Pss Ithal Vs Kennametal India Ltd.

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs Malurappa

M/S Gravure Cylinder Colour Process System Vs Engineering & General Workers Union

Sri Ramachandra T Vs Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

The Printers (Mysore) Private Limited Vs Sri Prakash S

Associated Managements of Government Vs Union of India