The Management of Vs H B Biradar

THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. EXPERT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD BOMMASANDRA NO.274-C, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, B 099, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE - 560 099. REPRESENTED BY MR. VICTOR D. SWAMINATHAN VICE PRESIDENT.

¶16

…APPELLANT

¶17

(BY SRI. K.R. ANAND, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

H.B. BIRADAR S/O BHEEMANA GOUDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶20

RAMAKRISHNA

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:47865-DB WA No. 839 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1620 of 2025

HC-KAR

S/O BAPIRAJU

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

M. MUNISWAMI S/O MUTHUVEERAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶27

RANJIT DAS

¶28

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR

¶29

4(A). SMT. MINATI DAS W/O LATE SRI. RANJIT DAS AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT BARAMAHAR KOTALPARA,

¶30

HOWRAS WEST BENGAL - 711 401.

¶31

ARUP TAKI S/O KUDI RAM TAKI, AGED AOBUT 43 YEARS,

¶32

R. MANJUNATHA S/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶33

AZIZUR REHMAN S/O SKABUZAFAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶34

SATESH KUMAR S/O V.G. SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶35

HOLLIYAPPA ANAVERY S/O ERAPPA

¶36

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶37

3 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:47865-DB WA No. 839 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1620 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

10. G. MANJUNATHA S/O GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶41

RAMANATH B. NAIK S/O BHAIRANNA NAIK AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶42

CHALAPATHI S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶43

LOKANAYAKI

¶44

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF R.KRISHNA W/O LATE R. KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

14. ARUN KUMAR

S/O LATE R. KRISHNA

AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT SITE NO.2 G.M. NARAYANA REDDY LAYOUT, BEHIND MAAJI SAGAR HOTEL, ELECTRONIC CITY, BENGALURU - 560 100.

¶49

…RESPONDENTS

¶50

(BY SRI. V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶51

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE AND QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DATED 04/04/2025 PASSED IN WP NO.25432/2016 (C/W 54627/2016) IN SO FAR AS CONFIRMING RELIEF OF REINSTATEMENT GRANTED TO 13 1ST RESPONDENT WORKMEN AND ENHANCING THE MONETARY COMPENSATION TO 60 PERCENT WAGES FROM THE DATE OF

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:47865-DB WA No. 839 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1620 of 2025

¶53

4 -

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

THE AWARD TILL DATE, AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION OF THE APPELLANT HEREIN.

¶56

IN WA NO. 1620/2025

¶57

BETWEEN:

¶58

SRI. H BIRADAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O BHEEMANNA GOUDA,

¶59

SRI RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O BAPIRAJU,

¶60

SRI M. MUNISWAMY SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR. SMT. LATHA MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶61

SRI. ARUP TAKI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O KUDI RAM TAKI,

¶62

SRI R. MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O RAJANNA,

¶63

SRI AZIZUR REHMAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O SKABUZAFAR,

¶64

SRI SATEESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O V.G. SUBRAMANI,

¶65

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47865-DB WA No. 839 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1620 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

SRI HOLIYAPPA ANAVERY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O ERAPPA,

¶68

SRI. G. MANJUNTHA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O GANGAPPA,

¶69

SRI RAMANATH B NAIK, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O BHAIRANNA NAIK,

¶70

SRI CHALAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O VENKATAPPA ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE R/AT C/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNA, SITE NO.2, G.M. NARAYANA REDDY LAYOUT, BEHIND MAAJI SAGAR HOTEL, ELECTRONIC CITY, BENGALURU - 560 100.

¶71

...APPELLANTS

¶72

(BY SRI. NAIK V.S, ADVOCATE)

¶73

AND:

¶74

THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. EXPERT INDUSTRIES PVT. LIMITED., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, NO.274-C, K.I.A.D.B. INDUSTRIAL AREA, BOMMASANDRA, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 099 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶75

...RESPONDENT

¶76

(BY SRI. K.R. ANAND, ADVOCATE)

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:47865-DB WA No. 839 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1620 of 2025

¶78

6 -

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 04.04.2025 IN WP No-54627/2016 (L-TER) TO THE EXTENT THE APPELLANTS ARE AGGRIEVED AND ALLOW THE WP No-54627/2016 (L-TER) AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶81

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶82

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶83

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶84

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶85

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶86

The present two writ appeals have been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24532/2016 connected with W.P.No.54627/2016. The management, the petitioner in W.P.No.25432/2016 filed the writ petition impugning the award dated 29.01.2016 passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru in Reference No.63/2009, whereas the 14 workmen who are respondents in W.P.No.24532/2016 had filed the

¶87

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:47865-DB WA No. 839 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1620 of 2025

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

petition in W.P.No.54267/2016 impugning the award so far as awarding the back wages to an extent of Rs.3,00,000/- only and not the full back wages.

¶90

The learned Single judge, by the impugned judgment

¶91

and order has disposed of both the petitions in following terms:

¶92

(i) Writ Petition No.25432/2016 is allowed in part.

¶93

(ii) The impugned award directing payment of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of back wages to each of the workmen is set aside.

¶94

(iii) The workmen are entitled to 60% backwages from the date of the award passed by the Labour Court.

¶95

(iv) The workmen are entitled to other benefits like continuity of service from the date of initial appointment and all other financial benefits.

¶96

(v) The amount paid under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shall be adjusted towards the monetary benefits payable to the workmen.

¶97

(vi) Writ Petition No.54627/2016 claiming backwages is dismissed.

¶98

(vii) The workmen who have attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the proceedings are not entitled to reinstatement.

¶99

8 -

¶100

NC: 2025:KHC:47865-DB WA No. 839 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1620 of 2025

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

However, they are entitled to all other monetary benefits conferred till the date of superannuation as per this order.

¶103

The base settlement between the Management and

¶104

the Workers' Union had taken place on 18.04.2005, which got expired on 31.03.2008. The Workers' Union issued notice on 01.03.2008 demanding settlement. On 04.02.2008, the Union submitted its first charter of demands. The Management did not accept the said charter of demands. Despite several discussions between the Management and the Union, no settlement could be arrived at between the Management and the workers. It appears that as the Management was not accepting the charter of demands for wage settlement, the workmen resorted to strike and submitted a resignation dated 06.07.2009, which bore the names of 50 workmen, but it was signed only by 39 workmen. On the very next day, i.e., on 07.07.2009, it is said that the Management had accepted the resignation of 14 workmen out of the 39 who signed the representation and submitted the resignation. The 14 workmen whose resignation was accepted out of the 39 workmen who had submitted a joint resignation,

¶105

9 -

¶106

NC: 2025:KHC:47865-DB WA No. 839 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1620 of 2025

¶107

HC-KAR

¶108

raised industrial dispute and the Government by its order dated 01.12.2009, preferred the following industrial dispute for decision of the Labour Court:

¶109

(i) Whether it is justifiable that the applicant M/s Expert Industries Private Limited, Bommasandra, Bengaluru 560 099, accepting only the resignations of the employees who were working in their company viz., Sri.H.B.Biradar, Sri.A.Ramakrishna, Sri.A.Muniswamy, Sri.Aroop Thaki, Sri. Ranjit Das, Sri.R.Manjunath, Sri.Rehman, Sri.Satish Kumar, Sri.Holiyappa, Sri.G..Manjunath, Sri.Ramanath, Sri.B.Naik, Sri.Chalapathi and Sri.Krishnan and relieving them from the service?

¶110

(ii) If not, for what relief the said employees are eligible?

¶111

The Labour Court, after considering the pleadings, framed the following additional issues for decision:

¶112

(i) Whether second party proves that the concerned workmen have tendered their resignation voluntarily?

¶113

(ii) What award or other relief the parties are entitled to?

¶114

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:47865-DB WA No. 839 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1620 of 2025

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

The Labour Court after considering the evidence and the fact that out of 39 workmen who had submitted their joint resignation, only the resignation of 14 workmen were accepted. This was the one resignation signed by all the 39 workmen. The Management on the very next day of the date of resignation i.e., 07.07.2009 accepted the resignation of only 14 workmen. The learned Labour Court was of the opinion that accepting the resignation of 13 / 14 workmen out of 39 that too on the very next day was discriminatory. The workmen were forced to submit their resignation and their resignation was not voluntary. In view thereof, the reference was answered and the award dated 29.01.2016 came to be passed directing the Management to reinstate all 13 / 14 workmen within 30 days with all financial, consequential benefits including increments. Instead of full back wages, the Management was directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as lumpsum amount towards the back wages to each of the 13 / 14 workmen.

¶117

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:47865-DB WA No. 839 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1620 of 2025

¶118

HC-KAR

¶119

The said award came to be challenged by the Management and the workmen by filing two writ petitions as mentioned above. The learned Single Judge after considering the submission has passed the impugned order.

¶120

Learned counsel for the Management / petitioner has submitted that except for 13 / 14 workmen who are the respondents in the writ petition filed by the Management, all other workmen had withdrawn their resignations. The said submission appears to be completely false and incorrect. The date of the joint resignation is 06.07.2009. The acceptance of the resignation of 13 / 14 workmen is 07.07.2014 and therefore, the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner / Management does not appear to be correct to say that all other workmen except the 13 / 14 workmen had withdrawn their resignation and only 13 / 14 workmen insisted not to come back on work.

¶121

In view of the aforesaid, we do not find that the award or the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge requires ay interference except the order of 60% of the

¶122

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:47865-DB WA No. 839 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1620 of 2025

¶123

HC-KAR

¶124

back wages as directed by the learned Single Judge instead of Rs.3,00,000/- lumpsum back wages awarded by the Labour Court. Therefore, we restore the award passed by the Labour Court dated 29.01.2009 and instead of 60% back wages as awarded by the learned Single Judge, we direct the Management to pay Rs.3,00,000/- lumpsum amount towards the back wages to each of the 14 workmen or their legal heir as the case may be. We make it clear that the workmen would be entitled for the full wages from the date of the award minus the wages paid under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Management is directed to pay the lump sum amount towards the back wages of Rs.3,00,000/- to each of the 13 /14 workmen and the full wages from the date of the award minus wage already paid under Section 17B of the Act within a period of two months till the workmen are reinstated except those who have attained the age of superannuation. The reinstatement of the workmen who have got the service left should be forthwith.

¶125