National Textile Corporation Ltd., Vs Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:7771 WP No. 11747 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 11747 OF 2022 (L-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD., SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE 35B, SOMASUNDARAM MILL ROAD COIMBATORE-641009 REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER (TECHNICAL)/OFFICER IN CHARGE OVER ALL IN CHARGE OF SOUTHERN REGION DEALING WITH MARKETING AND SALES OF YARN AND CLOTH BUSINESS

¶8

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SCOPE COMPLEX, 4/IV, NO.7 LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE COMPANY AND RESPONSIBLE FOR EFFICIENT FUNCTIONING AND ACHIEVING CORPORATE OBJECTIVES

¶10

NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD., (RETAIL MARKETING DIVISION) NO.35/B, SOMASUNDARAM MILLS ROAD COIMBATORE-641009 REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER ENGAGED IN THE PURCHASE OF CLOTHS FROM NTC MILLS AND THIRD PARTY AND SELLING THROUGH NTC SHOWROOMS COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER

¶11

COMPANIES ACT–1956.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. C.K.SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER)

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7771 WP No. 11747 of 2022

¶15

AND:

¶16

DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) SHRAMSADHAN, YESHWANTHAPUR INDUSTRIAL SUBRUB, 2^ND STAGE, GORUGUNTEPALYA, TUMKUR ROAD BENGALURU-560022.

¶17

SHRI S S PATIL GENERAL SECRETARY NTC SHOWROOM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (RETD) NO.21, II MAIN, BINNY LAYOUT ATTIGUPPE, BENGALURU-560040.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. NISHAN UNNI P., CGC FOR R1 SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS LEADING TO THE PASSING OF THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2022 PASSED BY THE R1 IN NO.76(34)/2018-B4/C2 (ANNEXURE-V). QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2022(ANNEXURE-V) AND ALSO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IF ANY INITIATED PURSUANT TO THE SAID ORDER.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7771 WP No. 11747 of 2022

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioners seek to challenge the legality and correctness of the order dated 31.05.2022 passed by respondent No.1 granting permission to respondent No.2 to prosecute petitioners Nos.2 and 3 for nonimplementation of the award dated 20.07.2021 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal” for short) in I.D No 31/1995.

¶26

Petitioner No.1 is the National Textile Corporation (NTC), a Central Public Sector undertaking under the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India. Petitioner No.2 is the Managing Director and petitioner No.3 is the Divisional Manager of the South Region. The dispute arose when respondent No.2, the NTC Showroom Employees Association raised a dispute in the year 1995 in I.D No.31/1995 regarding the implementation of pay scales in accordance with the 4^th Pay Commission for the employees working in the NTC showrooms in Karnataka. The Tribunal passed an award directing the petitioners to

¶27

4 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:7771 WP No. 11747 of 2022

¶29

implement the pay scales as per the 4^th Pay Commission Scales or NTC scales on par with the employees with the divisional office of the second party i.e., petitioner No.1 herein. The order of the Tribunal was challenged in W.P. No.6505/2002 by the NTC. This Court by an order dated 12.07.2006 confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal in I.D No.31/1995.

¶30

Aggrieved, the NTC preferred W.A.

¶31

No.1359/2006. The Division Bench of this Court held that the Writ Appeal was not maintainable and declined to entertain the Writ Appeal. Aggrieved, the NTC approached the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6036-6037/2009, which came to be dismissed confirming the order passed by the Tribunal. The non-implementation of the order passed by the Tribunal, respondent No.2 filed a complaint before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 passed the impugned order granting permission to respondent No.2 to prosecute the petitioners. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶32

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7771 WP No. 11747 of 2022

¶33

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶34

petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that they have implemented the award and submitted material evidence to support their claim, which has not been duly considered by the authority. It is contended that there has been no determination of the exact amount payable, and therefore, the workers / employees are required to file an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (’ID Act’ for short) for computation and the action under Section 29 of the ID Act penalizing the petitioners for non-compliance with the award without determination of the award is not maintainable.

¶36

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing

¶37

for the respondents contends that the award remains unimplemented and there is clear violation justifying the prosecution of the petitioners.

¶38

6 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:7771 WP No. 11747 of 2022

¶40

This Court has carefully considered the rival

¶41

contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶42

The Tribunal passed an award on 20.07.2001 and the operative portion of the order of the Tribunal reads as under:

¶43

“The I party employees are entitled for the pay scales as per the 4^th Pay Commission Scales or N.T.C. Scales on par with the employees of the Divisional Office of the II Party. The II party is not justified in transferring the employees on whims and fancies, but they have to transfer the employees in accordance with the transfer policy.

¶44

With respect to the Points of Dispute No.I (3) the same is rejected.

¶45

With respect to the Points of Dispute No. I (6) it is held that as the I Party employees are entitled for wages on par with the employees of Divisional Office, the filling up of the posts in the divisional office is also to be considered from the employees of the Show-room.

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:7771 WP No. 11747 of 2022

¶48

With respect to the Points of Dispute No.I (6) to (11), the terms and conditions applicable to the employees of the Divisional Office also applies to the I Party employees.

¶49

In the circumstances, I answer the points of dispute accordingly. In the circumstances, I pass no order as to costs.”

¶50

The award came to be confirmed in the Civil Appeal preferred by the petitioner and held as under:

¶51

“It is not possible for us to rely upon the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned Additional Solicitor General, without any supporting material. In any case, it is not open to the appellant to raise such an issue at such a belated stage, when the entire controversy stands settled at various levels. Moreover, since there are only 26 employees who draw financial benefits from the award dated 20.07.2001 and the impugned judgments rendered by the High Court, we find no justification whatsoever to interfere with the orders impugned before this Court.

¶52

Learned Additional Solicitor General however expressed a serious apprehension, namely, that persons similarly situated the members of the

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7771 WP No. 11747 of 2022

¶54

respondent-association, would seek parity on the strength of the award dated 20.07.2001, and likewise, claim wages at par with the wages paid to employees of the Head Office/Corporate Office. The issue of parity is undisputedly an issue of fact. In case such a claim is raised by other Showroom employees of the National Textile Corporation, it would be open to the appellant to establish on the basis of cogent evidence, that they are not similarly situated as the employees posted in Head Office/Corporate Office. The above apprehension, therefore, stands taken care of.”

¶55

The Tribunal held that the employees are entitled for the pay scale as per the 4^th Pay commission Scales or NTC scales on par with the employees of the Divisional office of the petitioners. The amount payable to the workmen has been determined in the award and further quantification as contended by the petitioners under Section 33(c)(2) or through any proper adjudication is not necessary. On perusal of the impugned order it indicates that the authority found no material evidence produced by the petitioners. However, the petition and the material on record indicate that the petitioners have indeed

¶56

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7771 WP No. 11747 of 2022

¶57

submitted the materials about implementation of the award, which has not been considered by the authority. Given the serious nature of granting sanction for prosecution, such an order must reflect due application of mind. Since the sanction is a prerequisite for prosecution, an order passed without application of mind vitiates the proceedings. For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(1) The writ petition is allowed in part .

¶60

(2) The impugned order passed by respondent No.1 dated 31.05.2022 is hereby

¶61

set aside.

¶62

(3) Matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1 for fresh consideration, considering the documents produced by the petitioners and ensuring due application of mind and adherence to principles of law.

¶63

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7771 WP No. 11747 of 2022

¶64

(4) Parties to appear before respondent

¶65

No.1 on 17.03.2025.

¶66

(5) The petitioners and the respondents are at liberty to submit their memo of calculation, all contentions are kept open to be urged before the respondent No.1-authority.

¶67

(6) This Court has not expressed merits or demerits of the case and any opinion expressed is only to the limited extent of considering the present writ petition.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

_______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶70

ykl

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

National Textile Corporation Ltd., v. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Textile Corporation Ltd., v. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna C Vs the State of Karnataka

Nirmala Rangaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivasagara M B Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Devaraja a N Vs the State of Karnataka

The Humcha Primary Agricultural Credit Co. Operative Society Vs Smt Saroja H

Mrs. Anitha Jesuman Vs the Central Arecanut and Cocoa