Allowed

The Management of v. Sri M.M.Chandrashekaraiah

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2024WP/9191/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A worker dismissed in 2011 for misconduct raised a dispute; the Labour Court awarded him closure compensation despite his dismissal predating the factory's 2013 closure. The High Court held the award unsustainable and quashed it, confirming the dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Writ of certiorari ordered; Labour Court award dated 17.10.2018 quashed; dismissal order confirmed; writ petition allowed.

The Management of Vs Sri M.M.Chandrashekarai… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:25197 WP No. 9191 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 9191 OF 2019 (L-ID)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. PARLE PRODUCTS PVT LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS FACTORY MANAGER, 15TH K.M.STONE, BANGALORE-TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 073.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

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

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

SRI. M.M.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A C/O SMT.PREMALATHA, NO. 206, BHARANI, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, 8^TH CROSS, U.B.MEC COLONY, BANGALORE-560 058.

¶15

(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Sri.Subrahmanya., learned counsel on behalf of

¶21

Sri.B.C.Prabhakar., for the petitioner has appeared in person.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:25197 WP No. 9191 of 2019

¶24

Emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 07.03.2019. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. The respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶25

The brief facts are these:

¶26

The respondent joined the petitioner's factory as a worker in the year 2002. He was served memo for his unauthorized absence on 10.11.2004. In the year 2008 he was served Advisory Memo for not clearing the defective packets generated at his machine. Hence, he was issued with charge sheet cum show cause notice for willful subordination causing damage, negligence in work, idling and wasting time, refusal to carry out assigned work, etc. A detailed inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry officer held that the charges are proved. Based upon the report of the Inquiry officer the respondent was dismissed from service on 08.03.2011.

¶27

Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent raised a dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D.No.20/2012 on the file of I Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore. The petitioner field counter

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:25197 WP No. 9191 of 2019

¶30

statement. The Labour Court vide award dated:17.10.2018 allowed the claim petition in part and directed to calculate and pay closure compensation as per Section 25(O) and (8) of the I.D. Act as that of other employees i.e., in the cadre first party and also directed that he is entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) whichever is higher. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as setout in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respective parties have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with and also the records with utmost care.

¶32

The simple point that would arise for consideration is whether the Labour Court is justified in awarding closure compensation.

¶33

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. It is not in dispute that the respondent was appointed in the petitioners' factory back in the year 2002. However, on account of certain misconduct he came under disciplinary proceedings and he was visited with an order of

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:25197 WP No. 9191 of 2019

¶35

punishment i.e., dismissal from service on 08.03.2011. It is not in dispute that the petitioners' factory was closed from 09.09.2013 after obtaining approval of the State Government. The reason for closure was Labour unrest. As already noted above the respondent was dismissed from service on 08.03.2011 that is much before the closure. The Labour Court erred in directing the Management to pay closure compensation, since the respondent was not on the rolls of the factory as on the date of closure. The Labour Court has overlooked this aspect of the matter and has erroneously concluded that the Management is liable to pay the closure compensation. In my opinion, the award of the Labour Court is unsustainable in law.

¶36

For the reasons stated above, the award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside.

¶37

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated:17.10.2018 passed by the I Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.20/2012 is quashed. The order of dismissal is confirmed.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:25197 WP No. 9191 of 2019

¶40

8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

The Management of v. Sri M.M.Chandrashekaraiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of v. Sri M.M.Chandrashekaraiah

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

Raksha Management and Protection Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs All India Trade Union Congress Reg

Omkar Offset Printers Vs All India Trade Union Congress (Reg)

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri S Manjunatha

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs H T Basavaraj

The Deputy Conservator of Forest Vs Sri C N Amaresh

All India Trade Union Congress Vs State of Karnataka