Allowed

Cargill Business Services India Private Limited v. Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2024WP/5169/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employer challenged a reference of a workman's termination dispute to adjudication. Holding that the employee drew managerial salary and performed supervisory/managerial work, he was not a 'workman' under section 2(S) ID Act; the reference was held erroneous and quashed.

What did the court decide?

Writ of certiorari ordered; Order of Reference dated 16.10.2019 (Annexure-D) quashed.

Cargill Business Services India Private… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:25479 WP No. 5169 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 5169 OF 2020 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

CARGILL BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CARGILL GLOBAL TRADE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD), SEZ OFFICE, 3^RD FLOOR, BLOCK NO. 09, PRITECH PARK SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, BELLANDUR, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 103, REPRESENTED BY ITS ER AND IR SPECIALIST, SAMYATH BALLAL,

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VASUKI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.C.PRABHAKAR., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶14

PRABHUPANI.V.D.V S/O. SRI. V.YESUPADAM, NO. 08, 1^ST MAIN, HANUMAIAH LAYOUT, SANJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. AMARAVATHY.H.R., AGA FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2-HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED:10.01.2022)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:25479 WP No. 5169 of 2020

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Sri.Vasuki., learned counsel on behalf of

¶23

Sri.B.C.Prabhakar., for the petitioner and Smt.Amaravathy.H.R., learned AGA for respondent No.1 have appeared in person.

¶24

Emergent notice to the second respondent was ordered on 31.03.2020. A perusal of the daily order sheet reveals that notice to respondent No.2 was held sufficient vide order dated:10.01.2022. The second respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

¶25

The captioned Writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the Order of Reference dated:16.10.2019 passed by the first respondent in ¸ÀASÉå:LD-IDM/331/2019LD.DO.5.L.S vide Annexure - D on several grounds as setout in the Memorandum of a Writ Petition.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respective parties have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25479 WP No. 5169 of 2020

¶28

behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶29

The second respondent contends that he has been terminated from employment on 22.03.2018. The petition filed by the second respondent is furnished in the Writ petition and the same is marked as Annexure - B. In the petition, he states that he has been terminated and he mentions certain names and contends that they are responsible for his termination. A perusal of the petition also reveals that he has certain grievances about the alleged occurrence of the incident at his residence and the damage to his vehicles.

¶30

Suffice it to note that the petitioner issued a letter of employment to the second respondent and the same is furnished and marked as Annexure-A. The contents of the letter of employment show that he was appointed as a supervisor and was drawing a salary of Rs.21,00,005/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Five only) per annum. He was working as Lead Systems Engineer in the petitioner’s company and was employed as a Member of Management Staff. He extended the benefits applicable to Managerial staff and not the benefits of unionized

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:25479 WP No. 5169 of 2020

¶32

category workmen. Furthermore, he engaged in innovative and managerial work. Hence, he is not a workman as defined under section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In my view,

¶33

the first respondent erroneously formed an opinion and mechanically referred the matter for adjudication as if there existed an industrial dispute between the parties. I may venture to say that the authority concerned has committed a serious error in referring the matter for adjudication. Therefore, I deem it proper to quash the order of reference.

¶34

The writ of certiorari is ordered. The Order of

¶35

Reference dated:16.10.2019 passed by the first respondent in ¸ÀASÉå:LD-IDM/331/2019-LD.DO.5.L.S vide Annexure - D is quashed.

¶36

8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

MRP

¶39

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Cargill Business Services India Private Limited v. Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cargill Business Services India Private Limited v. Government of Karnataka

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

The Management of Vs Sri M.M.Chandrashekaraiah

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs H T Basavaraj

The Deputy Conservator of Forest Vs Sri C N Amaresh

The Commissioner Vs Swamy

Management of Vs Sri. K.S. Nanjundaswamy

The Managing Director Vs G Anand Since Deceased by His Lrs.