Quashed

M/S Cvc Biorefineries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Shivalingaiah R

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024WP/6569/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged a Labour Court's rejection of an application seeking permission to lead evidence in an industrial dispute case. The court quashed the impugned order, permitting the petitioners to cross-examine the applicant (AW-1) and lead their evidence on the fixed date, subject to payment of costs and release of Rs.25,000 deposited.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.02.2024 quashed; petitioners permitted to cross-examine applicant on 22.04.2024 and lead their evidence; Rs.25,000 deposit released to respondent; arrears of cost to be paid.

M/S Cvc Biorefineries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11048 WP No. 6569 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 6569 OF 2024 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S CVC BIOREFINERIES PVT. LTD., FORMERLY KNOWN AS ENVL TE BIOGAS (INDIA) PVT LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.29, HOSPITAL ROAD, MALIKS BUILDING, 1^ST FLOOR, SHIVAJINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 001, CIN U40300KA2007PTC044679 REG UNDER COMPANY ACT.

¶9

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI KOLLURU KRISHNAN, DIRECTOR OF M/S CVC BIOREFINERIES PVT LTD., FORMERLY KNOWN AS ENVI TE BIOGAS (INDIA) PVT LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.29, HOSPITAL ROAD, MALIKS BUILDING, 1^ST FLOOR, SHIVAJINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 001, CIN U40300KA2007PTC044679.

¶11

BOTH PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED PERSON AND SUPERVISOR SRI ELUMALAI SUBURAYAN, WORKING AS SUPERVISOR IN M/S CVC BIOREFINERIES PVT LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.29, HOSPITAL ROAD, MALIKS BUILDING, 1^ST FLOOR, SHIVAJINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI RAMESH H.E, ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11048 WP No. 6569 of 2024

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI SHIVALINGAIAH R, S/O RACHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.28, APPAKERE, KABBALAMMA BIDI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, PIN CODE -571501.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SMT SUSHMITHA K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAJENDRA K.R., ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) QUASH OR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 16/02/2024 PASSED BY THE II. ADDL. LABOUR COURT (NYAYADEGULA) AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO. 21/2018 ON IA NO. 7 AS PER ANNEXURE-A, FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS THEREIN UNDER SECTION 11 OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶23

The petitioners are aggrieved by the dismissal of the application before the Labour Court at Bangalore where they have sought permission to lead evidence of the officer of the 1^st respondent before the Labour Court. The said application was opposed by the applicant before the Labour

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:11048 WP No. 6569 of 2024

¶26

Court who is respondent in the present petition. The Labour Court has taken note of the conduct of the present petitioners, despite sufficient opportunity being granted on payment of cost to cross-examine the applicant and to lead evidence on behalf of the 1^st respondent-Company before the Labour Court, has not availed the opportunity. Accordingly, taking note of this persistent default in paying the cost and cross-examine the parties before the proceedings and leading his own evidence, the Labour Court has rejected the application.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the application ought not have rejected and the petitioners have shown bonafides by depositing Rs.25,000/- before this Court in terms of the order dated 04.03.2024. Since the application is filed seeking permission to lead evidence of one of the officials of the 1^st respondent, this Court is of the view that the petition is to be allowed subject to the condition that the petitioners to pay arrears of cost imposed by the Tribunal to the respondent on the next date of appearance before the Labour Court. In addition, the cost of Rs.25,000/- which is deposited before this Court to be released in favour of the respondent.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:11048 WP No. 6569 of 2024

¶30

It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the cross-examination of the applicant is also not completed and should be permitted to conclude the crossexamination of the applicant.

¶31

Considering the nature of the dispute to do complete justice, this Court is of the view that the respondents should be permitted to cross-examine AW-1 on a condition that they would cross-examine the applicant on the date of his appearance before the Labour Court and also lead their evidence on the same day.

¶32

Hence, the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(i) The impugned order dated 16.02.2024 passed by II Additional Labour Court (Nyayadegula), Bengaluru in Application No.21/2018 on I.A.No.7.

¶35

(ii) The petitioners are permitted to cross-examine the applicant before the Labour Court and the petitioners are permitted to lead their evidence. The petitioners shall cross-examine the applicant on 22.04.2024 i.e., on the date already fixed by the Labour Court.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:11048 WP No. 6569 of 2024

¶38

(iii) Registry shall release Rs.25,000/- deposited by the petitioners in favour of the respondent after due identification.

¶39

(iv) Petitioners shall also pay arrears of cost already imposed by the Trial Court, if not already paid.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

GVP List No.: 3 Sl No.: 20

M/S Cvc Biorefineries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Shivalingaiah R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Cvc Biorefineries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Shivalingaiah R

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

Sri. M Y Dass Vs Smt. Gowramma

M/S Veeravahana Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii

Smt.B.N Asha Vs M/S. the Management of Mysore Hindi Prachara Parishad

Sri.Madhusudhana Vs the Commissioner

The Bangalore Development Authority Vs Smt B N Kokila

T Channagiriyappa Vs Smt Gangamma