Disposed

Hanumantharaju a v. the Management of M/S Mico Limited

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2024WP/47409/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Twenty workmen engaged as temporary operators from 1998 to 2003 challenged a Labour Court award dismissing their reference alleging termination without Section 25F ID Act compliance. Holding expiry of fixed-term contracts is not retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb), the Court upheld the award but granted compensation: one month's salary per completed year plus Rs.25,000 each to eleven surviving pe

What did the court decide?

Eleven petitioners awarded compensation of one month's salary per completed year of service plus Rs.25,000/- each, payable within eight weeks; writ petition disposed.

Hanumantharaju a Vs the Management of M/S… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:34164 WP No. 47409 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.47409 OF 2012 (L-TER)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

HANUMANTHARAJU .A S/O. AKKANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NARANAHALLI DODDBERAVANGALA (POST) DODDABALLAPURA (TQ.), BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶9

NATARAJU R.C. S/O. CHIKKE GOWDA R.H. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.55, 7^TH MAIN, I CROSS, ESCORTS COLONY, ATTUR LAYOUT, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 64.

¶10

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

¶11

GAJENDRA .Y S/O. LATE VENKATESHA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.125, TG LAYOUT, ITTAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 085.

¶12

PRASHANTH .J S/O. NARAYAN .G AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.28, 7^TH ‘B’ CROSS, KALAPPA LAYOUT, BASAVANAGAR, BANGALORE.

¶13

SRIDHARA BHAT .B S/O. CHANDRASHEKAR BHAT, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.46, 8^TH MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, HANUMANTHA NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 019.

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34164 WP No. 47409 of 2012

¶15

BASAVARAJ .D S/O. BASAVANNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.500, 5^TH CROSS, CHURCH ROAD, BUVANESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 007.

¶16

PRASAD P.G. S/O. GOPAL REDDY .P.M AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.117, PARAPANNA AGRAHARA SINGASANDRA (P), BANGALORE – 560 068.

¶17

SACHIDANANDA MURTHY .N S/O. K. NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1353, 32 E CROSS, 4^TH T-BLOCK, BANGALORE.

¶18

A.T. RAJA KUMAR

¶19

S/O. R. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.15, JOGI NILAYA, PARAPANNA AGRAHARA, SAMPANGI LAYOUT, SINGASANDRA (P), BANGALORE – 560 068.

¶20

SUNDAR .D

¶21

S/O. DHANDHAYUDHAM .N AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.13/1, III CROSS I MAIN, BYTARAYANAPURA, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 026.

¶22

MAHESHA

¶23

S/O. RAME GOWDA. AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT TATTEKERE POST, HASSAN (TQ.), HASSAN – 573 217.

¶24

P.N. JAGADISH RAO S/O. NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, C/O. KESHAVAMURTHY, NO.16, 16^TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34164 WP No. 47409 of 2012

¶26

KESHAVA MURTHY

¶27

S/O. VENKATA RAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.16, 16^TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE – 560 030.

¶28

DHANANJAYA .A S/O. ANKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.234, 6^TH CROSS, C.K. NAGAR, SINGASANDRA(P), BANGALORE – 560 068.

¶29

KIRAN KUMAR T.V. S/O. VENKATESH GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, NO.180, 9^TH MAIN ROAD, 1^ST CROSS, B.S.K. III STAGE, SREENIVASA NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 050.

¶30

SIMHA PRASAD .D S/O. A. DWARKANATHA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1534/A, 18^TH MAIN, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, BANGALORE – 560 026.

¶31

LOKESHA B.G. S/O. GANGADHARA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.377, MEI LAYOUT, BAGULKUNTE, BANGALORE.

¶32

DHANRAJ .G S/O. GOVINDAPPA .T AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.58, KUMBARAHALLI, CHIKKABANAVARA (POST), BANGALORE – 90.

¶33

SRINIVASA MURTHY M.R. S/O. LATE RAMAIAH .C AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.33, 5^TH CROSS, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, III PHASE, BANGALORE – 560 058.

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:34164 WP No. 47409 of 2012

¶35

MAHESH H.P. S/O. PUTTAMOGANA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, & RESIDING AT NO.415, I MAIN, 4^TH B CROSS, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR, T. DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE.

¶36

... PETITIONERS

¶37

(BY SRI M. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶38

AND:

¶39

THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. MICO LIMITED PRESENTLY KNOWN AS BOSCH LTD., NAGANATHAPRUA PLANT, EARLIER SITUATED AT: POST BOX NO.6857, SINGASANDRA P.O., MADIWALA – 560 068 BANGALORE DISTRICT NOW SITUATED AT: POST BOX NO.6887, ELECTRONIC CITY POST OFFICE, BANGALORE – 560 100. ... RESPONDENT

¶40

(BY SRI K. KASTURI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR *SMT. K. SHUBHA ANANTHI , ADVOCATE)

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO REF.NO.36/05 ON THE FILE OF THE I- ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-G, REGARDING THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS & GRANT THEM; QUASH THE AWARD DATED 30.04.2012, PASSED IN REF.NO.36/05, ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDL. LABOUR COURT AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-G, PETITIONER CONCERNED ONLY AS IT SUFFERS FROM ERRORS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND CONTRARY TO LAW AND ETC.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

*Corrected vide Court Order dated 01.10.2024

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34164 WP No. 47409 of 2012

¶46

ORAL ORDER

¶47

Petitioners were appointed as temporary operators in the respondent-company during October and November, 1998 for a fixed period. The respondent-company extended the employment of the petitioners as operators on temporary basis for further period and the employment

¶48

of the petitioners continued with the respondent – company till January, October and November, 2003. The petitioners and 23 other workmen raised a dispute through Engineering and General Workers’ Union (‘the union’ for short) before the Labour Court in Ref. No.11/2024 stating that the services of the petitioner and other workmen (total 43) came to be terminated without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the ID Act’ for short) and also without following the provisions of Section 25N.

¶49

The respondent-company filed counter stating

¶50

that the Union does not have authority to espouse the claim of the petitioners as they were the members of the

¶51

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:34164 WP No. 47409 of 2012

¶52

MICO Karmikara Sangha and in view of the binding settlement dated 01.03.1999, the workmen cannot raise any dispute. Further, it is stated that there is no termination of services of the workmen as they were appointed on temporary basis.

¶53

To the counter, the union filed rejoinder refuting the contention of the respondent-company, stating that the settlement dated 01.03.1999 does not bind the petitioners as they were appointed prior to the settlement, which regulates the future employees.

¶54

Two workmen, namely, Nataraj and Keshava

¶55

were examined as W.W.1 and W.W.2 and marked documents at Ex.W.1 to W.4. On behalf of the respondent-company, one Mathew P.L, DGM (Personnel) was examined as M.W.1 and marked documents at Ex.M.1 to M.100.

¶56

The Labour Court by the impugned order dismissed the reference assigning the following reasons:

¶57

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:34164 WP No. 47409 of 2012

¶58

i. The workmen covered under the “flexible need based engagement of workmen-FEW”, entered into the settlement by the company and the union under Sections 12 (3) read with 18 (3) of the ID Act and no dispute is maintainable.

¶59

ii. No order of termination of services were produced to prove that the services of the workmen were terminated.

¶60

iii. That the workmen were subsequently called for on Job Training (OJT) by the respondent-company, which they have refused.

¶61

Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, out of 43 workmen, 20 workmen are before this Court.

¶62

It is brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner Nos.12 and 17 to 20 were regularized during the pendency of this writ petition and dispute regarding 15 workmen is involved herein.

¶63

Learned senior counsel appearing for the

¶64

respondents-company submits that out of 15 workmen,

¶65

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:34164 WP No. 47409 of 2012

¶66

the claim in respect of only 11 petitioners would survive, namely, Nataraju R.C.-petitioner No.2, Prashanth .Jpetitioner No.4, Hanumantha Raju .A-petitioner No.1, Basavaraj .D-petitioner No.6, Sachidananda Murthy .Npetitioner No.8, Raja Kumar A.T.-petitioner No.9, Sundar .D-petitioner No.10, Mahesha-petitioner No.11, Keshava Murthy-petitioner No.13, Dhananjaya .A-petitioner No.14 and Kiran Kumar T.V.-petitioner No.15.

¶67

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended as under:

¶68

i. That the Tribunal has rejected the reference on the ground that workmen is covered under “Few settlement dated 01.03.1999”, which is totally erroneous, as the settlement was in relation to the future employees and thus, workmen were on the roles of the respondent from 1998 and settlement dated 01.03.1999 does not bind them.

¶69

ii. The Labour Court failed to appreciate that the termination of service of the workman was in violation of

¶70

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:34164 WP No. 47409 of 2012

¶71

Section 25F of the ID Act, as the workmen have not been paid compensation in lieu of any notice.

¶72

iii. That the respondent-company has not issued three months notice nor paid three months wages in lieu of notice nor an application has been filed to the Government seeking prior permission for retrenchment of the petitioners.

¶73

iv. Since five workmen out of 43 workmen have been regularized, the petitioners are also entitled for the same benefit on the principles of parity.

¶74

v. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the event, if this Court is of the opinion that the termination was not bad due to the terms of the appointments, then reasonable compensation needs to be awarded to the petitioners in light of the continuous service of the petitioners from 1998 to 2003.

¶75

vi. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case

¶76

of District Development Officer and another Vs. Satish Kantilal Amrelia¹ (Satish Kantilal Amrelia) .

¶77

1 (2018) 12 SCC 298

¶78

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:34164 WP No. 47409 of 2012

¶79

Per contra , learned senior counsel Sri K. Kasturi

¶80

for the respondent-company, drawing the attention of this Court to the terms of the employment of the petitioners, contended that the workmen were employed on contract for a fixed term and the settlement by the management and the MICO Karmikara Sangha recognizes the Trade Union and has a binding effect in light of Section 18 (3) of the ID Act, which is binding on all the parties. Learned senior counsel takes this Court to the affidavit of P.L. Mathew, DGM (Personnel) examined on behalf of the company, who has categorically stated about the employment of the petitioners on temporary basis and that the entries of settlement by the Sangha i.e., recognized trade union binds them. That the termination of the petitioners was as a result of expiry of the contract service and as such, it was not ‘retrenchment’ within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the ID Act and therefore, Section 25-F of the ID Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶81

11 -

¶82

NC: 2024:KHC:34164 WP No. 47409 of 2012

¶83

In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:

¶84

Management of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.,

¶85

Aircraft Division, Bangalore Vs. P. Narayanappa

¶86

and another² (Hindustan Aeronautics).

¶87

Haryana State F.C.C.W Store Ltd., and another Vs.

¶88

Ram Niwas and another³ (Ram Niwas)

¶89

Escorts Ltd., Vs. Presiding Officer and another⁴

¶90

(Escorts)

¶91

Buckingham and Carnatic Company Ltd., Vs. Venkatayya and another⁵ (Venkatayya)

¶92

Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana Vs. Ram Pal⁶

¶93

(Ram Pal)

¶94

Yogeesha T.N. Vs. Management of Kennametal

¶95

India Ltd.⁷ (Yogeesha T.N)

¶96

7. Ramadas D.B. and others Vs. The Government of Karnataka and others⁸ (Ramadas D.B.)

¶97

2 W.A. No.5337/1998 D.D. 13.08.2001

¶98

3 2002-II-LLJ-1153

¶99

4 1997 (3) LLN 65

¶100

5 1963 (2) LLJ 638

¶101

6 2006-II-LLJ-235

¶102

7 2024 (2) LLN 497 (Kar)

¶103

8 2023 LLR 628

¶104

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:34164 WP No. 47409 of 2012

¶105

Learned senior counsel submits that if the Court

¶106

is of the opinion, that the compensation has to be awarded to the petitioners for the service rendered by them from 1998 to 2003 as indicated by the petitioners, then the petitioners would be entitled for one month’s salary for every completed year of service rendered by the petitioners.

¶107

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶108

parties, the only point that arise for consideration is :

¶109

“Whether the Labour Court was justified in dismissing the reference and whether the same warrants any interference by this Court?”

¶110

Petitioners were appointed as temporary operators in the respondent-company and clause in the appointment of the petitioners indicates that the appointment of the petitioners as “temporary Operators” was for a fixed period and that no right or claim for any permanent position in the company’s Naganathapura factory or in any other units of the company, after

¶111

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:34164 WP No. 47409 of 2012

¶112

completion of the specified period of temporary appointment, further, clause stipulates that the employment will automatically cease at the end of the period of the temporary service unless the temporary service period is extended by writing and further, the company unconditionally reserves the right to terminates the services during the specified period of the temporary service, without assigning any reason at its sole discretion.

¶113

The petitioners signed the appointment order accepting the employment on the terms and conditions stated therein. The terms of engagement are for a fixed period as temporary operators. The respondent-company for want of service of the petitioners, has extended the appointment of the petitioners as temporary operators for a further period upto the year 2003. The petitioners pleaded that the termination of the petitioners from 2003 amounted to ‘retrenchment’. Section 2(oo) of the ID Act reads as under:

¶114

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:34164 WP No. 47409 of 2012

¶115

“ 2. Definitions.— In this Act, unless there

¶116

is anything repugnant in the subject or context,—

¶117

(oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include —

¶118

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

¶119

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or”

¶120

Subsequently, clause (bb) was inserted in Section 2

¶121

(oo), which reads as under:

¶122

“2(oo) x x x

¶123

(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or”

¶124

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics observed that when the

¶125

termination of the workman was as a result of the expiry

¶126

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:34164 WP No. 47409 of 2012

¶127

of contract of service, it would not amount to

¶128

retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the ID Act and observed that Section 25-F had no application when the period of contract was for a fixed period. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Niwas has taken a similar view that the termination of service of workman appointed for a specific purpose, for a particular period and the purpose for their engagement/appointment was over and the period of appointment had expired, has no retrenchment. On similar terms and in identical circumstances, taking the similar view, the Apex Court in

¶129

the case of Escort has held that the termination of the services of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation, in that behalf contained therein does not constitute retrenchment in view of Clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the ID Act and Section (bb) excludes from the ambit of the expression “retrenchment” as defined in the main part of Section 2 (oo).

¶130

16 -

¶131

NC: 2024:KHC:34164 WP No. 47409 of 2012

¶132

The Apex Court in the case of Venkatayya has

¶133

held as under:

¶134

“Even so, what is the effect of S. 73(1) ? In considering this question, it would be useful to take into account the provisions of Sub-sec. (2). This Sub-section provides that no notice given to an employee during the period specified in Sub-sec. (1) shall be valid or operative. Thus, it is clear that the giving of the notice during the specified period makes it invalid, and it is remarkable that the notice is not in regard to dismissal, discharge or reduction in respect of sickness alone, but it includes all such notices issued, whatever may be the misconduct justifying them. Thus, there can be no doubt that the punitive action which is prohibited by S. 73(1) is not confined to punitive action proceeding on the basis of absence owing to sickness; it is punitive action proceeding on the basis of all kinds of misconduct which justifies the imposition of the penalty in question. What S. 73(1) prohibits is such punitive action and it limits the extent of the said prohibition to the period during which the employee is ill. We are free to confess that the clause is not very happily worded, but it seems to us that the plain object of the clause is to put a sort of a moratorium against all punitive actions during the pendency of the employee’s illness. If the employee

¶135

17 - NC: 2024:KHC:34164 WP No. 47409 of 2012

¶136

is ill and if it appears that he has received sickness benefit for such illness, during that period of illness no punitive action can be taken against him. That appears to us to be the effect of that part of S. 73(1) with which we arc concerned in the present appeal. If that be so, it is difficult to invoke S. 73 against the appellant, because the termination of Venkatayya’s services has not taken place during the period of his illness for which he received sickness benefit.”

¶137

This Court, in similar circumstances in the case of Yogeesha T.N., has taken a similar view. In the instant case, the appointment of the petitioners was for a fixed period. The termination of the petitioners was as a result of the expiry of the contract though it was extended by the respondent-company upto 2003, the term of the contract was on temporary basis and as such, in light of the provisions stated supra and in light of the aforesaid decisions, the expiry of contract service would not amount to ‘retrenchment’ within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) and clause (bb) of the ID Act and Section 25F of the ID Act has no application to the present facts of the case and the

¶138

18 - NC: 2024:KHC:34164 WP No. 47409 of 2012

¶139

point framed for consideration is answered accordingly, holding that the award of the Labour Court does not warrant any interference.

¶140

The fact remains that the petitioners were continued in service on temporary basis from 1998 till 2003 and have rendered services for nearly 5 years, the employment of the petitioners with the respondentcompany was extended, petitioners believe that their services would be continued and sudden refusal of employment by the respondent-company has put the petitioners to surprise and irreparable loss, in the said circumstances, this Court feels it appropriate to grant the compensation to the petitioners by awarding one month’s salary for every completed year of service, by taking into consideration the period of service rendered by the workmen, in addition, a sum of Rs.25,000/- each has to be awarded to the 11 petitioners named at paragraph No.7 and accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶141

19 -

¶142

NC: 2024:KHC:34164 WP No. 47409 of 2012

¶143

ORDER

¶144

i. Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶145

ii. Petitioners, namely, Nataraju R.C.-petitioner No.2, Prashanth .J-petitioner No.4, Hanumantha Raju .A-petitioner No.1, Basavaraj .D-petitioner No.6, Sachidananda Murthy .N-petitioner No.8, Raja Kumar A.T.-petitioner No.9, Sundar .Dpetitioner No.10, Mahesha-petitioner No.11, Keshava Murthy-petitioner No.13, Dhananjaya .Apetitioner No.14 and Kiran Kumar T.V.-petitioner No.15 are entitled to compensation of one month’s salary for every completed year of service by taking into consideration the period of service, in addition, the above mentioned petitioners are entitled to Rs.25,000/- each.

¶146

iii. Respondent to pay the compensation as indicated at (ii) of the order portion stated supra within eight weeks from the date of release of this order.

¶147

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶148

MBM

¶149

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Hanumantharaju a v. the Management of M/S Mico Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumantharaju a v. the Management of M/S Mico Limited

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

Sri. Maxim D Souza Vs Sri. M. Abbas

B S Venkatakrishna Urs Vs Smt Gayathri

M/S. Udaya T v Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner and Authority

Rangaswamaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Prakash Vs Sri Narayanaswamy

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner