Disposed

Dakshina Kannada Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. v. Sri J Keshava

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2024WP/44739/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Workman dismissed after domestic enquiry obtained a Labour Court award for reinstatement with 50% backwages and continuity. The employer challenged it, relying on Government permission to close its sugar factory under Section 25(o) ID Act. The High Court substituted reinstatement with Rs.12,00,000 compensation in lieu of reinstatement and benefits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: petitioner-management directed to pay respondent-workman Rs.12,00,000 compensation in lieu of reinstatement within four weeks.

Dakshina Kannada Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:35820 WP No. 44739 of 2011

¶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

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.44739 OF 2011 (L-TER)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DAKSHINA KANNADA SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE LTD., REGD. OFFICE: S.C.D.C.C. BANK BUILDING, MANGALORE-3, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI NATARAJA BALLAL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI J. KESHAVA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O. THUKRA MOGERA, CHANDRAMBIKA KRUPA, MOODUSHEDDE, MANGALORE TALUK. ... RESPONDENT

¶12

Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN I.D.A. NO.12/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, D.K., MANGALORE; ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE AWARD DATED 31/01/2011 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, D.K., MANGALORE IN I.D.A. NO.12/1997 (ANNEXURE-A)

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:35820 WP No. 44739 of 2011

¶18

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

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

The respondent was appointed as a conductor by the petitioner-management in the sugar factory, for certain charges of misconduct, the respondent was suspended from service on 21.01.1995, charge sheet was issued to the respondent seeking explanation, but the respondent failed to submit any explanation to the charges, domestic enquiry was held, the petitioner dismissed the respondent from service.

¶21

The respondent filed claim statement under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the ID Act” for short) seeking for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 11.02.1997 and seeking for reinstatement to his original post with continuity of service, full backwages and other consequential benefits.

¶22

Petitioner filed objections to the claim statement, inter alia, contending that despite the respondent being afforded sufficient opportunity to submit

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35820 WP No. 44739 of 2011

¶24

his reply to the charges leveled against him, the respondent failed to appear before the enquiry officer, the enquiry officer held enquiry and submitted the report holding charges leveled against the respondent was proved.

¶25

Additional counter statement was filed contending that due to non-availability of sugarcane and financial crisis, the factory was closed and the Government

¶26

has taken a decision to lease the factory to M/s.Rami Sugars and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, for a period of thirty years from 2007 and from 16.04.2006, the factory has been closed.

¶27

The respondent filed rejoinder contending that the factory is not closed and that it is still running.

¶28

The Labour Court, on issue No.1 regarding fairness of domestic enquiry, arrived at a conclusion that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. On the other issue, the Labour Court arrived at a conclusion that

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:35820 WP No. 44739 of 2011

¶30

the respondent has proved that the order of dismissal is illegal and the petitioner had failed to rebut the contention of the respondent and failed to prove that the enquiry conducted and the order passed by the disciplinary authority does not suffer from illegality and directed reinstatement with 50% of backwages and continuity of service. The Labour Court, while answering the additional issue, relating to the closure of the petitioner – factory, observed that since the applicant / respondent has denied the closure of establishment, the establishment failed to prove such closure, denied to accept the closure of the establishment.

¶31

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended

¶32

that an application was filed by the petitioner management under Section 25(o) of the ID Act seeking for closure of the factory assigning reasons for closure and the appropriate Government, by the order dated 27.02.2006, has permitted the petitioner – management to close the business by following the mandatory provisions as

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:35820 WP No. 44739 of 2011

¶34

contemplated under Section 25(o) of the ID Act and inspite of the fact being brought to the notice of the Labour Court about the closure, the Labour Court has directed the petitioner – management to reinstate the workman which in the present facts and circumstances is not possible. Learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo estimating the remuneration for the period of 01.08.1996 to April 2006, which reads as under:

¶35

“Mr. Keshava J. was working as Field assistant in M/s. Dakshina Kannada Sahakari Sakkare Karkane Ltd. Brahmavara.

¶36

His estimated remunerations for the period of 01 August 1996 to 15 April 2006 is as follows.

¶37

*Estimate*	*Total*	*50% Salary*
Salary	6,78,944.95	3,39,472.48
Bonus	32,000.00	32,000.00
Leave Salary (EL)	59,355.85	59,355.85
Gratuity	1,08,480.00	1,08,480.00
PF	76,715.93	76,715.93
*Total Payable*	*9,55,496.73*	*6,16,024.26*

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:35820 WP No. 44739 of 2011

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner further

¶40

submits that 50% of the backwages as awarded by the Labour Court would come to Rs.6,16,024.26/- and the total salary along with the other benefits would come to Rs.9,55,496.73/and would be rounded off to Rs.10,00,000/- and the respondent would be paid Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and other benefits.

¶41

The respondent though duly served with the

¶42

notice, he has chosen to remain absent.

¶43

There appears to be sufficient force in the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in light of the factory being closed with effect from 16.04.2006.

¶44

The operative portion of the order passed by the appropriate Government under Section 25(o) finds place as under:

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:35820 WP No. 44739 of 2011

¶46

“zÀQët PÀ£ÀßqÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁj ¸ÀPÀÌgÉ PÁSÁð£É, §æºÁäªÀgÀ, GqÀÄ¦ f¯Éè F PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄÄ DyðPÀ ªÀÄÄUÀÎlÖ£ÀÄß JzÀÄj¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, CzÀ£ÀÄß °Ã¸ïUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî®Ä AiÀiÁgÀÆ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¨ÁgÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀ PÁgÀt, ºÁUÀÆ PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ ¸Á®PÉÌ CqÀªÀiÁ£ÀzÀ°è EzÀÄÝ, CzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÀ®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁUÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀ PÁgÀt, PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀæwPÀÆ® ¥Àj¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è EzÀÄÝ, wÃªÀæ DyðPÀ ªÀÄÄUÀÎlÖ£ÀÄß JzÀÄj¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ PÁgÀt, GvÁàzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉ¸À®Ä PÀZÁá ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ (PÀ§Äâ) ¹UÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀ PÁgÀt, PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄZÀÄÑªÀÅzÀÄ C¤ªÁAiÀÄðªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¹, zÀQët PÀ£ÀßqÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁj ¸ÀPÀÌgÉ PÁSÁð£É, §æºÁäªÀgÀ, GqÀÄ¦ f¯Éè F PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄZÀÑ®Ä PÉÊUÁjPÁ «ªÁzÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1947gÀ PÀ®A 25-O CrAiÀÄ°è C£ÀÄªÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.”

¶47

As the reinstatement of the respondent is not

¶48

available in the present scenario due to the closure of the factory, the respondent is entitled for remuneration for the period from 01.08.1996 to 15.06.2006, which has been paid to the similarly placed workmen by the petitioner – factory and compensation in lieu of reinstatement needs to be ordered.

¶49

Looking into the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the workman would be entitled for an additional sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:35820 WP No. 44739 of 2011

¶52

compensation apart from Rs.10,00,000/- and this Court pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

(i) Petitioner – management to pay Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation to the respondent – workman in lieu of reinstatement and other benefits being compensation

¶55

from the date of suspension till the closure.

¶56

(ii) The petitioner – management to pay the said amount within four weeks from the date of release of this order.

¶57

(iii) Accordingly, the Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶58

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶59

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Dakshina Kannada Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. v. Sri J Keshava

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dakshina Kannada Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. v. Sri J Keshava

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

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

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

Mohammed Sajjad Ali Vs Managing Director