Allowed

Mr a M Saleem v. Assistant Labour Commissioner

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2024WP/50467/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Payment of Gratuity Act order passed without impleading the Official Liquidator despite the company being wound up. The High Court set aside the Assistant Labour Commissioner's order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration with the Official Liquidator impleaded.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Annexure-A order set aside; matter remitted to respondent No.1 to reconsider afresh with Official Liquidator impleaded, orders within six months.

Mr a M Saleem Vs Assistant Labour… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:7321 WP No. 50467 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 50467 OF 2019 (L-PG)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. A.M SALEEM, EX-DIRECTOR OF M/S BPL ENGINEERING LTD. AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, SON OF MR. K.S. ABDUL KHADER, RESIDING AT 2A, CASSIA COURT APARTMENTS, COLES ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 052.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VACHAN.H.U, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, KARMIKA BHAVANA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 029.

¶15

SMT. B. LATHA, W/O THIMMANNA KULALA, NO.16, 7^TH MAIN, BANK OF BARODA COLONY, 7^TH STAGE, J P NAGAR, PUTTENAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶16

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF BPL ENGINEERING HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CORPORATE BHAVAN, 12^TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:7321 WP No. 50467 of 2019

¶19

NO.26-27, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. V.R.DATAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. JAGADEESHGOUD PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1, BANGALORE IN CASE VIDE ANNEXURE-A ALLOWING THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE R-2.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking for the

¶26

following reliefs.

¶27

In the circumstances, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased, in the interests of justice and equity, to set aside order, dated 04.09.2019, passed by the respondent No.1, Bangalore, in case No.KAAABEM-4/PGA/CR-84/2016-17, vide Annexure-A allowing the representation filed by the respondent No.2, and pass such other orders/or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶28

Heard Sri Vachan H.U., learned counsel for the

¶29

petitioner, Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned HCGP for respondent

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:7321 WP No. 50467 of 2019

¶32

No.1, Sri V.R. Datar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri Jagadeeshgoud Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶33

Application was filed by respondent No.2 under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (‘the Act’ for short) seeking direction to the petitioner-company to pay Rs.9,98,715/-, the company on appearance brought to the notice of the Tribunal regarding the order in COP No.160/2005 by this Court, ordering the petitioner-company to be wound up and the Official Liquidator to be appointed.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the official liquidator was not a party before respondent No.1-Assistant Labour Commissioner and would contend that in light of the company being in liquidation, the official liquidator is a necessary and proper party to be impleaded before the Assistant Labour Commissioner.

¶35

This Court, vide order dated 06.10.2023, permitted the petitioner to implead the Official Liquidator as respondent No.3, undisputedly, the Assistant Labour Commissionerrespondent No.1 fell in error in not considering the wounding up of company and the Official Liquidator being appointed,

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:7321 WP No. 50467 of 2019

¶37

making the error apparent on the impugned order. In the said circumstances, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 needs to be set-aside directing respondent No.1 to implead the Official Liquidator as a party to the proceedings before respondent No.1, in light of the same, this Court pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶40

ii) The impugned order passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-'A' is set-aside, matter is remitted back for reconsideration afresh to respondent No.1.

¶41

iii) Parties to appear before respondent No.1 on 20.03.2024, on such appearance, respondent No.2 to implead respondent No.3-the Official Liquidator as party in the proceedings.

¶42

iv) The Assistant Labour Commissioner to pass appropriate orders within six months from the date of appearance in accordance with law.

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:7321 WP No. 50467 of 2019

¶44

iii) It is needless to observe that this Court has not expressed any merits or demerits in this petition and if any, it is limited to the above extent.

¶45

iv) All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Mr a M Saleem v. Assistant Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr a M Saleem v. Assistant Labour Commissioner

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

Central Board of Trustees, Epf, Vs M/S Vijaya Halocoils Pvt. Ltd.

The Management Fdc Limited Vs B Rajakumar

Madegowda Vs the Managing Director

The Management of Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Vs Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Employees' Union

The Management of M/S the Printers Vs Sri Prakash S

Kptcl Hangami Nowkarara Sangha Vs M/S. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited