Dismissed

M/S Volvo Buses India Pvt. Ltd. v. the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2024WP/7005/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Management and a workers' union of Volvo Buses filed competing writ petitions over recognition of two dismissed workmen as protected workmen for different years. The underlying dismissal dispute had been settled by joint memo in earlier writ petitions, so both writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous with contentions kept open.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Volvo Buses India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:32750 WP No. 7005 of 2014 C/W WP No. 39363 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.7005 OF 2014 (L) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.39363 OF 2011 (L-RES)

¶8

IN W.P. NO.7005 OF 2014

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S. VOLVO BUSES INDIA PVT. LTD., YALACHAHALLI TAVAREKERE POST, HOSAKOTE, BANGALORE – 562 122 BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY. ... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI C.K. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.C. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONCILIATION OFFICER, BANGALORE REGION – II, KARMIKARA BHAVANA BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 029.

¶15

VOLVO BUSES WORKER UNION “SURI BHAVANA”, NO.40/5 2^ND “B” MAIN, 16^TH CROSS, SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 027 BY ITS UNION LEADER. ... RESPONDENTS

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:32750 WP No. 7005 of 2014 C/W WP No. 39363 of 2011

¶18

(BY SRI K. MANJUNATH, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 IS SERVED & THROUGH COURT NOTICE & UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS LEADING TO THE PASSING OF THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2013, PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, IN SERIAL APPLICATION NO.33/2011; QUASH THE PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 26.12.2013 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN SO FAR AS RECOGNIZING TWO DISMISSED WORKMEN NAMELY MR.B.S.SANTHOSH AND MR.D.DAYANANDA AS PROTECTED WORKMEN FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 VIDE ANNEXURE-K IS CONCERNED.

¶20

IN W.P. NO.39363 OF 2011

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

VOLVO BUSES WORKERS UNION (R), REG. NO.ALC-4:DRT/TUA-07/2009:10 “SURI BHAVAN”, NO.40/5, 2^ND B MAIN, 16^TH CROSS, SAMPANGIRAM NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 027 REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SRI D. DAYANANDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. ... PETITIONER

¶23

(BY SRI T.S. ANANTHARAM, ADVOCATE (DECEASED) (PETITIONER HEREIN IS R-2 IN CONNECTED CASE & SERVED THROUGH COURT NOTICE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONCILIATION OFFICER,

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:32750 WP No. 7005 of 2014 C/W WP No. 39363 of 2011

¶27

BANGALORE REGION-II, KARMIKARA BHAVANA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,

¶28

BANGALORE – 560 029.

¶29

THE MANAGEMENT M/S. VOLVO BUSES INDIA PVT. LTD., YALACHANAHALLY, TAVAREKERE POST, HOSAKOTE, BANGALORE – 562 122. ... RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI K. MANJUNATH, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI C.K. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.C. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS LEADING TO THE PASSING ORDER DATED 04.10.2011 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT I.E. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONCILIATION OFFICER, BANGALORE REGION-2 ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-R; SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2011 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT I.E., DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONCILIATION OFFICER, BANGALORE REGION-2 IN NO.DLC2/ID/CR-69/2011-12 (ANNEXURE-R) DECLINING TO CONFER THE STATUS OF “PROTECTED WORKMEN” TO THE TWO WORKMEN NAMELY SRI SANTHOSHA B.S. AND SRI D. DAYANANDA FOR THE YEAR 2011-12.

¶32

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

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

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:32750 WP No. 7005 of 2014 C/W WP No. 39363 of 2011

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

W.P.No.7005/2014 is filed by the management of M/s.Volvo Buses India Private Limited assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Sl.Application No.33/2011 and the order dated 26.12.2013 passed by respondent No.1 insofar as, recognizing two dismissed workmen namely, B.S. Santosha and D.Dayananda as protected workmen for the year 2013-14.

¶37

W.P.No.39363/2011 is preferred by the registered trade union of M/s. Volvo Busses workers Union assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 04.10.2011 passed by respondent No.1 declining to confer the status of “protected workmen” to the two workmen namely, B.S.Santosha and D.Dayananda for the year 2011-12.

¶38

Sri C.K.Subramanya, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.7005/2014 submits that the workmen B.S.Santosha and D.Dayananda were dismissed from service on 11.08.2011 and challenging the order of dismissal, the

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:32750 WP No. 7005 of 2014 C/W WP No. 39363 of 2011

¶40

workmen had approached the Labour Court in Ref.No.49/2011, the Labour Court allowed the reference in part. Assailing the order of the Labour Court, the Management as well as the trade union approached this Court in W.P. No.36613/2017 connected with W.P. No.39105/2017, joint memo of settlement was filed and the writ petitions came to be disposed of in terms of the joint memo. The relevant portion of the order in the above mentioned writ petitions is as under:

¶41

“It is ordered that date of superannuation had they continued in service with the company in case of Mr.Dayananda D and Sri Subramanya Y is 20.07.2036 and 07.05.2042 respectively. The exgratia amount is spread over compensation for the remaining years had they continued in service with the company until the date of retirement of said employees.”

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶43

the claim of the workmen - B.S.Santosha and D.Dayananda as “protected workmen” for the years 2011-12 and 2013-14 had spent its time and these petitions have become

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:32750 WP No. 7005 of 2014 C/W WP No. 39363 of 2011

¶45

infructuous as the “protected workmen” was only for the period of one year. The said submission is recorded.

¶46

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions would not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous . All the legal contentions are kept open to be urged in

¶47

appropriate proceedings.

¶48

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶49

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

M/S Volvo Buses India Pvt. Ltd. v. the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S Volvo Buses India Pvt. Ltd. v. the Deputy Labour Commissioner

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 Ananda Gowda C Vs the Managing Director

G Basha Sab Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Subbegowda Vs Smt. Sannamma

Shri Mahadevaiah Vs New Cambridge School

Sri. Mohammed Niaz Rashid Vs Smt. L. Susheela

Sri v C Byranna Vs Union of India