Dismissed

M/S Gravure Cylinder Colour Process System v. Engineering & General Workers Union

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2024WP/8358/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross writ petitions challenged a Labour Court award on closure of an establishment and additional retrenchment compensation. The High Court held the management, having fewer than 50 workmen, was outside Sections 25(o) and 25FFA, found no interference warranted with the award granting Rs.50,000 each as extra compensation, and dismissed both petitions.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Gravure Cylinder Colour Process System… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:5925 WP No. 8358 of 2012 C/W WP No. 46463 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.8358 OF 2012 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.46463 OF 2012 (L-TER)

¶7

IN W.P. NO.8358 OF 2012

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S. GRAVURE CYLINDER COLOUR PROCESS SYSTEM, 74/19-4, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE – 560 022 BY IT’S PARTNER S.R. BHADRINARAYAN. ... PETITIONER (BY V.C.O. DATED 08/08/2023 – M/S. GRAVURE CYLINDER COLOUR PROCESS SYSTEM BY ITS PARTNER)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ENGINEERING & GENERAL WORKERS UNION, GHATE BHAVAN, GAYATHRIDEVI PARK EXTENSION, VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE - 560 003, BY IT’S GENERAL SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT. N. SHARADA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN REF. NO.31/2007 ON THE FILES OF THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE; QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 31.10.2011 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN REF. NO.31/2007 APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNEXURE-A.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:5925 WP No. 8358 of 2012 C/W WP No. 46463 of 2012

¶17

IN W.P. NO.46463 OF 2012

¶18

BETWEEN:

¶19

THE ENGINEERING & GENERAL WORKERS UNION, GHATE BHAVAN, GAYATHRIDEVI PARK EXTENSION, VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE – 560 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. ... PETITIONER

¶20

(BY SMT. N. SHARADA, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

M/S. GRAVURE CYLINDER COLOR PROCESS SYSTEM, NO.74/19-4, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE – 560 022 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI S.R. BHADRINARAYAN.

¶23

SRI KUMAR AGENCIES, NO.75/10-3, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE – 560 022 REPRESENTED BY IT’S PROPRIETOR. ... RESPONDENTS

¶24

(RESPONDENTS ARE SERVED)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2011 MADE IN REF. NO.31/2007 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, PRINCIPLE LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO REJECTING THE MAIN PRAYER FOR HOLDING THAT CLOSING DOWN OF THE FACTORY IS ILLEGAL AND MALAFIDE AND REFUSING TO GRANT REINSTATEMENT WITH BACK WAGES TO THE MEMBERS OF THE UNION WHILE DIRECTING THE MANAGEMENT TO RESUME THE MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶26

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5925 WP No. 8358 of 2012 C/W WP No. 46463 of 2012

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Writ Petition No.8358/2012 is preferred by M/s.Gravure Cylinder Colour Process System by its partner and Writ Petition No.46463/2012 is preferred by M/s. The Engineering and General Workers Union, represented by its General Secretary. In both the writ petitions, they are assailing the order dated 31.10.2011 in Reference No.31/2007 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Bangalore, (“the Labour Court” for short).

¶30

The petitioner in W.P.No.46463/2012 assails the order insofar as it relates to rejecting the prayer in holding the closing down the factory is illegal and mala fide and refusing to grant reinstatement with back wages to the members of the union while directing the management to resume the manufacturing operations. While the petitioners in W.P.No.5358/2012 is to the extent of payment of Rs.50,000/towards retrenchment compensation apart from the retrenchment compensation paid by the petitioner - Management.

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:5925 WP No. 8358 of 2012 C/W WP No. 46463 of 2012

¶32

Heard Smt. Sharada N., learned counsel for the

¶33

petitioner – M/s. The Engineering and General Workers Union, who is petitioner in W.P.No.46463/2012 and respondent in W.P.No.8358/2012. Though notice has been served on M/s. Gravure Cylinder Colour Process System (Petitioner in W.P.No.8358/2012 and respondent in W.P.No.46463/2012), they have chosen to remain absent.

¶34

The petitioner in W.P.No.8358/2012 was represented by the counsel and pursuant to his filing memo for retirement and on accepting the same by this Court, notice was issued to the Management has been served and they have chosen to remain absent.

¶35

M/s. Gravure Cylinder Colour Process System is

¶36

referred to as the Management and M/s. Engineering & General Workers Union is referred as the Union for the sake of convenience.

¶37

The Union questioning the decision taken by the

¶38

Management to stop the production and making the Union

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:5925 WP No. 8358 of 2012 C/W WP No. 46463 of 2012

¶40

– employees unemployed raised a dispute before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer and the conciliation talks having been failed, the Labour Commissioner referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication, which reads as under:

¶41

“1. DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁzÀ ªÉÄB UÁæªÀågï ¹°AqÀgï PÀ®gï ¥ÉÇæ¸É¸ï ¹¸ÀÖªÀÄïì, £ÀA.74B 19-4, EAqÀ¹ÖçAiÀÄ¯ï C¨ïC¨ï, AiÀÄ±ÀªÀAvÀ¥ÀÅgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-22, vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀB 243-2006 gÀAzÀÄ C£ÁåAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV GvÁàzÀ£Á ZÀlÄªÀnPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ d£ÀgÀ¯ï ¸ÉPÉælj, EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï CAqï d£ÀgÀ¯ï ªÀPÀð¸ïð AiÀÄÆ¤AiÀÄ£ï WÁvÉ ¨sÀªÀ£À, UÁAiÀÄwæÃ zÉÃ« ¥ÁPïð, ªÉÊAiÀiÁ° PÁªÀ¯ï, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjAzÀ ¥Àæw¤¢ü¸À®àqÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥.Àr¸ÀÄªÀgÉÃ?

¶42

ºÁVzÀÝ°è ¸ÀzÀj PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÉÌ CºÀðgÀÄ?”

¶43

7. The Union filed claim statement contending that

¶44

the Management did not respond to the demands and grievances in the form of charter of demands and the Union office bearers and the management failed to resolve the charter of demands by negotiations, and during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, the management

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:5925 WP No. 8358 of 2012 C/W WP No. 46463 of 2012

¶46

issued a notice to the Union informing about the closure of

¶47

their establishment with effect from 24.03.2006.

¶48

The management appeared and filed their counter statement and contended that the said industry is a small establishment having seven to eight workmen engaged in the manufacture of Gravure Cylinders used by printing industry and technology to manufacture the said cylinder being manual, with the advent of new technology, the entire manufacturing activity is mechanised with the aid of computers and design CDs which is directly fed in the scanner at a very high speed with 100% accuracy and it is stated that the demand of cylinders came to be diminished day by day and as such, the management was forced to close down the production is the contention of – M/s. Gravure Cylinder Colour Process System management. M/s.Srikumara Agencies contended that it is a partnership firm having independent legal existence and has nothing to do with the second party No.1 –

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:5925 WP No. 8358 of 2012 C/W WP No. 46463 of 2012

¶51

management and it is a distinct entity. The Labour Court raised the following issues:

¶52

“1. Whether 1^st party/Union proves that there is interconnected relationship between II^nd party no.1(a) and (b) and the workers are also working in both the industries as and when the management directs, as per para – 5 of the claim statement?

¶53

2. Whether I^st party Union proves that II^nd party (a) after closure of the manufacturing operation has diverted the existing orders to II^nd party (b) and the subsequent orders are obtained in the name of II^nd party (b) and other sister concern, there by the closure of II^nd party (a) is sham, as per para 10 of the claim statement?

¶54

3. Whether the 2^nd party (b) proves that the claim is not maintainable against him and the court has not jurisdiction to adjudicate the I^st party’s claim against him, as per para 1, 3, and 4 of the Counter statement?”

¶55

In order to substantiate their claim, the

¶56

workmen examined three witnesses as WWs.1 to 3 and got marked documents at Exs.W-1 to W-26. On the other

¶57

hand, the management examined one witness as MW.1

¶58

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:5925 WP No. 8358 of 2012 C/W WP No. 46463 of 2012

¶59

and got marked documents at Exs.M-1 to M-42 and during the cross-examination of MW.1, documents came to be marked at Exs.W-27 to. 34 and the evidence came to be closed. The Labour Court vide impugned order held that the union failed to prove that, after closure of the manufacturing operation have directed the existing orders

¶60

to the second party M/s.Srikumar Agencies and the subsequent orders are obtained in the name of the Srinivas Agency and other sister concern, thereby, the union has failed to prove that the closure is sham as per the claim statement. The Labour Court by the impugned order held that apart from retrenchment compensation as contemplated under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act” for short) the union by its workmen is entitled to Rs.50,000/each as retrenchment compensation to the workers of the first party trade union over and above the compensation and other benefits already received.

¶61

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:5925 WP No. 8358 of 2012 C/W WP No. 46463 of 2012

¶62

Undisputedly, the respondent-management is not covered under either 25(o) or 25FFA of the Act since the establishment is working with the strength of less than 50 personnel. The Labour Court arrived at a conclusion that, in light of the retrenchment benefits to the workers of the trade union issue and their compensation has been

¶63

paid. Apart from that, the Labour Court felt it appropriate to grant Rs.50,000/- each by way of retrenchment compensation. The manner in which the Labour Court has dealt with, this Court is of the considered view that the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

(i) W.P. No.8358/2012 and W.P. No.46463/2012 are hereby dismissed .

¶66

(ii) The order of the Labour Court stands confirmed .

¶67

(iii) The Labour Court awarding Rs.50,000/each retrenchment compensation, to be made enforceable within three months, failing which, the said amount

¶68

10 -

¶69

NC: 2024:KHC:5925 WP No. 8358 of 2012 C/W WP No. 46463 of 2012

¶70

would carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of default.

¶71

(iv) In light of the dismissal of the writ petition, the pending I.As. if any, would not survive for consideration.

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

M/S Gravure Cylinder Colour Process System v. Engineering & General Workers Union

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S Gravure Cylinder Colour Process System v. Engineering & General Workers Union

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

Canara Bank Vs the Appellate Authority

Sri a S Eshwarappa Vs the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

H Bhagwandas Vs K P T C L

Sri P S Surendra Ithal @ Pss Ithal Vs Kennametal India Ltd.

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs Malurappa

Bangalore Metrolpolitian Transport Corporation Vs Lakshmipathi