Dismissed

Sri N Muniraju v. M/S Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co.Ltd

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2024WP/8685/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging an Industrial Disputes Act award. The Labour Court had reinstated a worker but denied full back wages post-closure. The Court upheld the award, finding no grounds to interfere with the equitable relief granted for the period between termination and the factory closure.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed and the Labour Court's award was confirmed.

Sri N Muniraju Vs M/S Mcnally Bharat… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:6587 WP No. 8685 of 2010 C/W WP No. 31038 of 2009

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 8685 OF 2010 (L-TER)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 31038 OF 2009(L-TER) IN WP NO.8685 OF 2010:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI N MUNIRAJU, S/O SRI NALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, C/O SECRETARY GENERAL, "CILC" HOUSE U 128, 2ND CROSS, GAUTHAMANAGAR, SRIRAMAPURAM, BENGALURU 560 021.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SMT. SANGEETA SANGANNAVAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI A. RAJESH, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶14

M/S MCNALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING CO.LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S.MCNALLY BANGALORE INDUSTRIES LTD), 3RD FLOOR, MARUTHI TOWERS, 9TH B MAIN, EX. CHAIRMAN LAYOUT, BANSWADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 043. REPRESENTED BY SRI B R SINHA, SR MANAGER HR AND ADMIN.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI SOMASHEKAR., ADVOCATE (V.C.))

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:6587 WP No. 8685 of 2010 C/W WP No. 31038 of 2009

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TO REF.NO.43/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE PRL.LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU. QUASH THE AWARD DT.12.11.2008, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS AT ANN-A, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRESIDINGIN OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN REF.NO.43/1999 ONLY TO THE EXTEND OF THE INCORRECT FINING THAT THE RESPONDENT IS CLOSED AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE AWARD OF THE LABOUR COURT IN NOT GRANTING THE FULL RELIEF OF REINSTATEMENT, FULL BACK WAGES FROM 31.10.2002, ONWARDS ALONG WITH OTHE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC.,

¶20

IN WP NO.31038 OF 2009:

BETWEEN:

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR., ADVOCATE)

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:6587 WP No. 8685 of 2010 C/W WP No. 31038 of 2009

¶26

AND:

¶27

SRI N MUNIRAJU, MAJOR, S/O SRI NALLAPPA, C/O GENERAL SECRETARY, CONFEDERATION OF INDIA LABOUR CENTRE, CILC, NO.28, 2ND CROSS, GAUTHAMANAGAR, SRIRAMAPURAM, BENGALURU 560 021.

¶28

…RESPONDENT

¶29

(BY SMT. SANGEETA SANGANNAVAR., ADVOCATE FOR

¶30

SRI A. RAJESH, ADVOCATE)

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL QUASH THE AWARD DATED 12.11.2008 IN REF.NO.43/1999 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SECOND ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE AT ANX-V AND ETC.,

¶32

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

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Both the writ petitions arisen out of the award dated 12.11.2008 in Ref. No.43/1999 on the file of the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore (‘the Labour Court’ for short).

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:6587 WP No. 8685 of 2010 C/W WP No. 31038 of 2009

¶36

Writ petition No.8685/2010 is assailed by the workman to the extent of holding the respondentestablishment closed and not granting relief of

¶37

reinstatement and back wages from 31.10.2002.

¶38

Writ petition No.31038/2009 is by the company

¶39

to the extent of granting back wages from 01.03.1996 to 31.10.2002 by setting aside the order of termination and to pay closure compensation to the workmen.

¶40

Parties herein are referred to as per the ranking

¶41

in W.P.No.8685/2010 as petitioner-workmen and

¶42

respondent-company.

¶43

The petitioner was employed as a General

¶44

Mazdoor, for his absenteeism, the respondent-company issued notices and memo, as the respondent remained continuously absent unauthorizedly, charge-sheet cum show cause notice was issued for his unauthorized absence. The absence according to the company was that the respondent was absent for a period of 130 days in the

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:6587 WP No. 8685 of 2010 C/W WP No. 31038 of 2009

¶46

year 1993, 204 days in 1994 and 84 days from August 1995 to 05.01.2006 in a period of four months. The respondent-company terminated the services of the petitioner for a continuous ill-health on 29.02.1996 by taking exception to the retrenchment under Section 2 (oo) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the ID Act’ for short), the respondent-company had issued two cheques towards gratuity and earned wages, though the said cheques were refused by the petitioner.

¶47

The petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Court challenging the order of termination, matter was referred to the Labour Court in Ref. No.43/1999, claim statement was filed by the workman, the company filed counter statement, the Labour Court by the impugned order set aside the termination order and directed the company to pay full back wages from 01.03.1996 to 31.10.2002 i.e., the date of closure of the company and directed th e company to pay closure compensation. Aggrieved by the order to the extent of finding that the

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:6587 WP No. 8685 of 2010 C/W WP No. 31038 of 2009

¶49

factory is closed and not granting the relief of reinstatement, full backwages from 31.10.2002 onwards along with other consequential benefits, workman is before this Court in W.P. No.8685/2010 and the company insofar as directing to pay full back wages from 01.03.1996 to 31.10.2002 and paying closure compensation to the workman in W.P. No.31038/2009.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman would contend that the closure of the respondentcompany as held by the Labour Court is not justified, as the Labour Court failed to appreciate that the closure as defined under the ID Act means permanent closing of place of business and a plea of closure belatedly, put-forth by the respondent-company was factually and legally unsustainable.

¶51

Learned counsel would contend that the Labour Court having held that the termination was not justified and illegal, the workman was entitled for relief of back wages and other consequential benefits and would contend

¶52

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:6587 WP No. 8685 of 2010 C/W WP No. 31038 of 2009

¶53

that the ill-health of the workman for which the petitioner had admittedly submitted the medical certificate, the respondent-company could not have illegally and unjustifiably terminated invoking provisions of Section 2 (oo) (c) of the ID Act. Learned counsel would contend that the entire limitation of termination is without affording any opportunity and without enquiry, the extreme action of termination from service was unjustified action.

¶54

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the Labour Court has fell in error that the termination order is not justified while only referring to Ex.M.42 dated 02.03.1996 stating that the company has given reasons for terminating the services for continued ill-health, which reasoning of the Labour Court is error apparent on the face of record, as EX.M.42 is not the termination order and its only a communication to addressing to the petitioner for having refused to receive the termination order dated 29.02.1996 at Ex.M.40 and

¶55

the Labour Court has failed to consider that the

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:6587 WP No. 8685 of 2010 C/W WP No. 31038 of 2009

¶57

termination of the petitioner was as per Ex.M.40, which is due to continued ill-health, Ex.M.40 also refers to the show-cause notice and the explanation of the petitioner was offered to the said show-cause notice and would contend that the respondent-company has called out the procedure and has terminated the services of the petitioner for his continued ill-health, which is an exception available under Section 2 (oo) (c) of the ID Act.

¶58

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is that:

¶59

"Whether the findings of the Labour Court in directing payment of full wages from 01.03.1996 to 31.10.2002 and holding that there is a closure of the company and directing the management to pay closure compensation is justified?" and "Whether the petitioner is entitle for full backwages from 31.10.2002 onwards along with other consequential benefits as stated in the petition?"

¶60

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:6587 WP No. 8685 of 2010 C/W WP No. 31038 of 2009

¶61

In order to answer the point for consideration,

¶62

Section 2 (oo) (c) of the ID Act needs to be looked into, which reads as under:

¶63

"2. Definitions : XXX

¶64

(oo): XXX

¶65

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued illhealth"

¶66

The facts reveal that the Labour Court referring to Ex.M.42 dated 02.03.1996 held that the respondent-

¶67

company has not given reasons for terminating the services for continued ill-health, the Labour Court has lost sight of the material evidence on record that the order of termination is at Ex.M.40 dated 29.02.1996 and Ex.M.42 placed reliance by the Labour Court to hold that the termination was invalid is unsustainable, since the termination order is dated 29.02.1996 at Ex.M.40, was accompanied with two cheques towards gratuity and wages.

¶68

10 -

¶69

NC: 2024:KHC:6587 WP No. 8685 of 2010 C/W WP No. 31038 of 2009

¶70

The perusal of Ex.M.40 refers to the showcause notice dated 05.01.1996 (Ex.M.36) and show-cause notice dated 31.01.1996 (Ex.M.38) and the petitioner has offered explanation to the said show-cause notices.

¶71

The reply submitted by the petitioner would indicate that ill-health on his part was not disputed by the petitioner, as the ill-health continued, the company was left with no option than to terminate the service of the petitioner by issuing notice of termination for continued illhealth, which is an exception to retrenchment under Section 2 (oo) (c) of the ID Act.

¶72

The termination of the workman was on account of continued ill-health as is evident from the material placed before the Labour Court, however, the Labour Court arrived at a conclusion that the termination order has to be set aside, holding that an enquiry should have been held by the company and failure to hold an enquiry, the termination is illegal and is contrary to law and facts, the said reasoning of the Labour Court warrants

¶73

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:6587 WP No. 8685 of 2010 C/W WP No. 31038 of 2009

¶74

interference for the sole reason that the workman did not dispute for his absence for which the show-cause notice was issued and the question of holding any enquiry to prove his absence due to ill-health and hence, the approach of the Labour Court that a failure to hold enquiry vitiated the dismissal is contrary to law.

¶75

The fact remains that the establishment is closed on 31.10.2002 and therefore, the workman has been in continuous service not less than one year in the establishment immediately before such closure and thus, the Labour Court taking into all the said aspects, has awarded compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 F of the ID Act as if the workman has been retrenched.

¶76

The Labour Court on the ground of equity has granted back wages for certain period from the date of termination till the closure and also awarded compensation for closure in accordance with the provisions of Section 25F, the relief granted to the petitioner-workman in the

¶77

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:6587 WP No. 8685 of 2010 C/W WP No. 31038 of 2009

¶78

present facts and circumstances is justified, even assuming the termination is valid for the reasons stated supra , however, this Court declines to interfere with the order of the Labour Court as equity demands that the workman was in service as a Mazdoor from 1982 till 1996, for the reasons beyond his control, the workman was unable to continue the service for which the notice was issued for his absence, which according to the petitioner was on account of his ill-health and the Labour Court taking note of the circumstances that prevailed upon the workman has rightly awarded backwages from 29.02.1996 to 31.10.2002, the date of closure and the same does not warrant any interference and the points framed for consideration is answered accordingly.

¶79

For the said circumstances, this Court pass the following:

¶80

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:6587 WP No. 8685 of 2010 C/W WP No. 31038 of 2009

¶81

ORDER

¶82

i. Writ petition No.8685/2010 and Writ petition No.31038/2009 are hereby dismissed .

¶83

ii. The award of the Labour Court stands confirmed .

¶84

Sd/JUDGE

¶85

AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Sri N Muniraju v. M/S Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N Muniraju v. M/S Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co.Ltd

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 Ramachandra T Vs Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

The Printers (Mysore) Private Limited Vs Sri Prakash S

H.M.T. Karimikara Sangha Vs the Management of H.M.T. Ltd.

Executive Officer Vs Puttamma

Sri Nataraj T L Vs the Managing Director

Union Bank of India Vs Sri S N Balasubramanian