Dismissed

M/S L T Karle (Karle International) v. Smt. S Umamaheshwari

Karnataka HC19 Aug 2024WP/48362/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash the Labour Commissioner's order granting sanction for prosecution under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for alleged non-implementation of a reinstatement award. The Court held that the sanction order was reasoned and that the question of breach must be adjudicated by the Criminal Court, not via writ jurisdiction at the thre

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S L T Karle (Karle International) Vs Smt… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33426 WP No. 48362 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.48362 OF 2018 (L-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M/S. L.T. KARLE (KARLE INTERNATIONAL), NO.151, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, YESWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 022, REP. BY ITS ASST. MANAGER (HR).

¶7

... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI H.M. MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SMT. S. UMAMAHESHWARI, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NO.8, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, SHIVANAGARA, PIRANGIPALYA, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010.

¶11

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

¶12

SMT. S. SHYLAJA, W/O. S. SANJEEV, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NO.250, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 6^TH CROSS, 3^RD STAGE, MANJUNATHANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶13

THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI H. MALLANA GOUD, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 AND R-2; SRI K. MANJUNATH, HCGP FOR R-3)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE 3^RD RESPONDENT AND ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33426 WP No. 48362 of 2018

¶17

BANGALORE, PERUSE THE SAME, ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2007 AND ORDER DATED 26.04.2007 PASSED BY 3^RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURES ‘A’ & ‘B’ AND ETC.,

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

Assailing the legality and correctness of the order granting sanction under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the ID Act’ for short) and order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner, the petitioner-company is before this Court.

¶21

Petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs:

¶22

"[a] issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Order No. IAA-1/CR-111/2006-207 dated 19.04.2007 and Order No. IAA- 1/CR-110/200607 dated 26.04.2007 passed by the 3^rd Respondent vide Annexures 'A' & B',

¶23

[b] quash the entire proceedings commenced consequent upon the Orders at Annexure 'A' & 'B' in C.C No.32074/2010 and vide Annexures 'C' & D in 32073/2010.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33426 WP No. 48362 of 2018

¶25

[c] in the alternative pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to pass on the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice."

¶26

Heard Sri. H. M. Muralidhar, learned counsel for

¶27

the petitioner-company, Sri. H. Mallana Goud, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri. K. Manjunath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.3.

¶28

Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the manufacture of readymade garments, the respondents-workmen were working as supervisors in the production department of the petitioner-company with effect from 15.07.1997/ 18.07.1997. Conciliation proceedings were raised by the respondents-workmen against the refusal of the employment, the Government vide order dated 05.08.1999 referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court, the Labour Court passed the award on 27.05.2006, directing the management to reinstate the

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33426 WP No. 48362 of 2018

¶30

respondents-workmen to their original post with continuity of service and 15% backwages. The award passed by the Labour Court was assailed by the petitioner-company in WP No.13259/2006, the writ petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2007.

¶31

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the company, the petitioner has paid the backwages as per the award and called upon the workmen to report for duty vide letter dated 14.05.2007 /15.05.2007, it is the contention of the petitioner that the workmen refused to report for duty, stating that they were asked to report at a different unit of the company and therefore, the petitioner again called upon the respondents-workmen to report for duty at Karle International Unit-II, Nelamangala and despite of the company sending call letters, the workmen did not join duties, but approached the Labour Commissioner for nonimplementation of the award. It is the contention of the

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33426 WP No. 48362 of 2018

¶33

petitioner that several call letters were issued to the workmen calling upon them to report for duty immediately and the petitioner has not breached the award and the non-implementation of reinstatement was due to the lapse on part of the workmen, that there cannot be a violation making the petitioner breach of any terms of the award under Section 29 of the ID Act and the order of sanction passed by the Labour Commissioner is erroneous and liable to be set aside and on basis of the sanction order, the respondents-workmen have filed complaint under Section 29 of the ID Act, before I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and summons have been issued to take cognizance of the offence.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of sanction for prosecution is without notice to the petitioner, in light of the submission, the records were secured by High Court Government Pleader and the records are perused by this Court.

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33426 WP No. 48362 of 2018

¶36

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents

¶37

submits that:

¶38

i. That respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order after applying its mind on the material placed and any grievance of the petitioner after sanction is to be adjudicated in the criminal proceedings.

¶39

ii. That the criminal proceedings have been initiated

¶40

by the respondents after obtaining sanction from the Labour Commissioner and the criminal cases in C.C. No.32074/2010 and C.C. No.32073/2010 are pending before the XXIV ACMM, Bengaluru and when the matter posted for defence evidence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking for quashing the proceedings in W.P. Nos.2761-2762/2013 and in proceedings,

¶41

the petitioner had obtained interim order and the trial in criminal proceedings has already suffered eight years, and the petitioner in the said writ

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:33426 WP No. 48362 of 2018

¶43

petition sought for quashing the criminal proceedings, but had not challenged the sanctioned order and on the same being pointed out by the Court, the petitioner has withdrew the writ petition with liberty to challenge the sanction order.

¶44

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is that:

¶45

“ Whether the order of sanction passed by the Labour Commissioner warrants any interference by this Court?”

¶46

The record produced by the High Court Government Pleader reveals that on 13.12.2006, notice was issued by the sanctioning authority on 19.12.2006, the reply was submitted by the petitioner stating that writ petition No.13259/2006 has been preferred and is pending consideration.

¶47

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:33426 WP No. 48362 of 2018

¶48

Thereafter, since there was no further status report filed by the petitioner, the notice was further issued on 20.03.2007 calling upon the petitioner to furnish the status of the writ petition, the petitioner having not furnished the details, the sanctioning authority after being satisfied has sanctioned to prosecute the petitioner.

¶49

A perusal of the order and the records of the Labour Commissioner would indicate that the Labour Commissioner has accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner after considering the material placed before it and applying its mind.

¶50

It is relevant to note that writ petition Nos.2761 and 2762/2013 preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner, to quash the proceedings in C.C Nos.32074 and 32073/2010 and the said petitions were sought to be withdrawn with liberty to challenge the sanction order passed by the Labour Commissioner dated 26.04.2007.

¶51

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:33426 WP No. 48362 of 2018

¶52

For the non-implementation of an award, the remedy available to the workmen is to execute it under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner has approached this Court against sanction order / notice issued under Section 29 of the ID Act, it is open for the employer-petitioner to put forth all his arguments before the Magistrate in C.C. Nos.32074/2010 and 32073/2010. Section 29 of the ID Act makes the breach of terms or settlement or award punishable a criminal offence. Whether the petitioner-company has committed any breach of any terms of the award, it has to be adjudicated before the Criminal Court. Section 29 of the ID Act envisages that any person who “commits a breach” of any term or settlement or award, which is binding on him under this Act and the Court trying the offence, when the prosecution proves that:

¶53

i. That there was award or settlement in operation at the time of breach.

¶54

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:33426 WP No. 48362 of 2018

¶55

ii. The award or settlement is valid in law.

¶56

iii. Such award or settlement binding on the accused.

¶57

iv. The accused has committed the breach of such award or settlement and

¶58

v. The complaint regarding the breach was made by the appropriate government.

¶59

The pre-requisites of punishment enumerated

¶60

under Section 29 of the ID Act is to be adjudicated in a criminal Court and the order of sanction is premature to be challenged by the petitioner-company, when primafacie respondent No.3 on consideration has ordered sanction and whether there is willful act on part of the company cannot be at a threshold held in a sanction order and thus, the impugned orders passed by the sanctioning authorities is a reasoned order and does not warrant any interference and consequently, there is no merits in this writ petition and accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶61

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:33426 WP No. 48362 of 2018

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i. The Writ petition is dismissed.

¶64

ii. The impugned orders at Annexures-A and B

¶65

stand confirmed.

¶66

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶67

AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT: BHK

M/S L T Karle (Karle International) v. Smt. S Umamaheshwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S L T Karle (Karle International) v. Smt. S Umamaheshwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M Dhananjaya Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri P B Hemachandra Vs Dr Kamath B N N

Mr Azamthullah a Vs Bescom Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.

Sri. a M Betakurki Vs Karnataka State Road Transport

M/S a T & S Company Ltd. Vs a T & S Drivers &

N Krishna Murthy Vs the Divisional Controller