A union challenged a Labour Court award rejecting a reference seeking permanent absorption of 24 trainees of Binny Limited under a 1989 settlement. The High Court held the workmen were only trainees/apprentices and never made permanent workmen, and declined to interfere with the well-reasoned award.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:45216 WP No. 999 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.999 OF 2010 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
WORKMEN OF BINNY LIMITED REPRESENTED BY BINNY KARMIKARA SANGHA BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY NO.23/2, I MAIN ROAD SESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU - 560 020. PRESENT ADDRESS NO.11, DR. T.C.M. ROYAN ROAD BENGALURU - 560053. BY ITS ADVOCATE K.S. SUBRAHMANYA.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K S SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF S.V. GLOBAL MILL LIMITED NO.106, ARMENIAN STREET
NC: 2024:KHC:45216 WP No. 999 of 2010
CHENNAI - 600 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. GENERAL MANAGER MR. R. MURALI BY ITS ADVOCATE MR. SHIRISH KRISHNA.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FRO SMT. K SUBHA ANANTHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 13.03.2009 VIDE (ANNEXURE-N) HEREIN AND HOLD THAT REFUSAL OF WARK TO 24 WORKMEN LISTED IN THE REFERENCE IS ILLEGAL RETRENCHMENT HAVING BEEN EFFECTED WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF 25 N OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, AND ALSO GRANT RELIEF OF REINSTATEMENT WITH FULL BACK WAGES, CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE CONCERNED WORKMEN. THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY FURTHER BE PLEASED TO HOLD THAT THESE WORKMEN ARE ENTITLED TO BE CONFIRMED AS PERMANENT OPERATIVES/ OPERATIVE ASSISTANTS IN TERMS OF SETTLEMENT DATED 19.07.1989 AND PAID DA IN ADDITIONA TO BASIC WAGES WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATES THEY WERE WORKING AS OPERATIVE / OPERATIVE ASSISTANTS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2024:KHC:45216 WP No. 999 of 2010
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
NC: 2024:KHC:45216 WP No. 999 of 2010
they were inducted into the first respondent - Management as apprentice, however, the Second Party - respondent No.1 herein, refused to accept them as permanent workers and that apart, the issuance of the notice dated 11.01.1997 (AnnexureD) by the respondent No.1 is illegal and as such, the 24 alleged workmen sought for interference of the Labour Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:45216 WP No. 999 of 2010
Management was examined as M.W.1 and produced ten documents and same were marked as Exs.M1 to M10. The Labour Court after considering the material on record, by Award dated 13.03.2009 (Annexure-N), rejected the Reference and being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:45216 WP No. 999 of 2010
therefore, the evidence of workmen was ignored by the Labour Court and accordingly, it is submitted that the Labour Court has committed an error in arriving at a conclusion to reject the Reference without considering the letters addressed by these alleged workmen as per Annexure-C to the Writ Petition. He also invited the attention of the Court to the evidence of W.W.1(Annexure-K) and submitted that the respondent - Management ought to have classified these persons as permanent workmen and without doing so, the finding recorded by the Labour Court is required to be interfered with in this Writ Petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:45216 WP No. 999 of 2010
Supreme Court in the case of MUKESH K. TRIPATHI Vs. Sr. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, L.I.C. AND OTHERS, reported in AIR 2004 SC 4179 and argued that no interference is called for in this Writ Petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:45216 WP No. 999 of 2010
deposed that as per the Settlement of 1989, these trainees will have to be classified as workmen from 01.01.1993 and the said aspect makes it clear that these 24 workmen were never treated as 'workmen' and they were appointed as trainees by the respondent No.1. It is also to be noted from the claim petition at Annexure-F, wherein the pleadings at paragraph No.5 would make it clear that, these petitioners were appointed as trainees / apprentices and their stipend was periodically increased as per the terms of the Settlement for some period. However, nothing is forthcoming from the claim petition itself that they were appointed as permanent employees. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Labour Court, wherein, the Labour Court after appreciating the evidence of workmen i.e., W.W.1 to W.W.5, rightly arrived at the conclusion that these petitioners were appointed as trainees / apprentices and were not engaged in service as permanent employees. Taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Labour Court at paragraph No.18 of the impugned Award, it is concluded that these employees were working in various Departments of the first respondent - Management as Trainees or multi-skilled Operative Trainees
NC: 2024:KHC:45216 WP No. 999 of 2010
and at no point of time they were appointed or made as permanent workmen. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MUKESH K. TRIPATHI(supra), observed at para Nos.22, 37 and
38 of its Judgment, which is extracted as below:
22. It may be true, as has been submitted by Ms. Jaisingh, that S.K. Verma (supra) has not been expressly overruled in H.R. Adyanthaya (supra) but once the said decision has been held to have been rendered per incuriam, it cannot be said to have laid down a good law. This Court is bound by the decision of the Constitution Bench.
********************
37. It is true that the definition of 'workman' as contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is exhaustive.
11. Having taken note of the declaration of law made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above, I am of the view that,
NC: 2024:KHC:45216 WP No. 999 of 2010
the Labour Court rightly rejected the Reference made by the Government to consider the case of the petitioners herein as workmen of respondent No.1.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE
sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the 24 trainees/apprentices were 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act entitled to absorption as permanent workers per the 1989 settlement.
Whether the Labour Court's award rejecting the reference was liable to interference under Articles 226/227.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mukesh K. Tripathi v. Sr. Divisional Manager, L.I.C. and OthersRelied on¶10
AIR 2004 SC 4179 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Workmen of Binny Limited represented by Binny Karmikara Sangha by its General Secretary
The Management of Binny Ltd
The Management of S.V. Global Mill Limited
E.S. Indiresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
