M/S Paragon Polymers Products Private Limited Vs Paragon Polymers Products Private Limited Workers Union

M/S. PARAGON POLYMERS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.8/2, GANGADHARANAPALYA KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 562 123 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER MR. SHIJUMON P. (REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. K. PRABHAKAR RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by C HONNUR PARAGON POLYMERS PRODUCTS SAB PRIVATE LIMITED WORKERS UNION, Location: HIGH NO.8/2, GANGADHARANAPALYA, COURT OF KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, KARNATAKA BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. G.V.P. REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BENGALURU ON THE FILE OF AID NO. 51/2022 (OLD) ID NO.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23483 WP No. 18786 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

290/2024 (NEW) AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU DTD. 25.03.2025 IN AID NO. 51/2022 (OLD) ID NO. 290/2024 (NEW) WHICH IS AT ANNX-H AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed assailing the order dated 25.03.2025 in AID 51/2022 (Old) I.D.No.290/2024 (new) on the file of Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru.

¶23

In terms of the said order, the Tribunal has allowed the interim application filed by the respondent -Union and directed the petitioner-Management to pay Rs.9,000/- p.m. as interim relief to the respondent.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order directing interim relief of Rs.9,000/p.m. to the workmen represented by the respondent-Union is without basis. He would submit that the settlement arrived at between the petitioner-Management and the other respondent-union which represented ninety one

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23483 WP No. 18786 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

workmen cannot be the basis to award the interim relief of Rs.9,000/- per month given the fact that ninety one workmen represented by other union who entered into settlement stood on a different footing as the said offer to pay Rs.9,000/- p.m. to the said ninety one workmen was by taking into consideration the concession given by the ninety one workmen who gave up their other demands.

¶28

It is further submitted that the members of the respondent-union before this court are insisting other demands as well and as such, their claim for Rs.9,000/- p.m. as interim relief cannot be equated with the relief which was granted to the ninety one workmen based on the settlement.

¶29

Learned counsel would further submit that respondent - union has not led evidence in support of its claim and there is no rebuttal evidence to the evidence led by the petitioner. The financial position of the petitioner-Management does not enable the Tribunal to pass an order for payment of Rs.9,000/towards interim relief.

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23483 WP No. 18786 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner-management had offered to pay Rs.8,050/- p.m. towards interim relief before the Conciliation Officer and it is not open for them to urge that they are not in a position to pay the amount. In addition, he would also submit that the Tribunal has passed the order based on the evidence led by the petitioner which would disclose that petitioner is capable of paying interim relief of Rs.9,000/- p.m. It is also his further submission that since the petitioner-management is paying Rs.9,000/- p.m. to other ninety one workmen, there is no reason to deny the similar benefit to the present workmen who are before this Court through Union.

¶33

This Court has considered the contentions raised at

¶34

the bar and perused the records.

¶35

The Management witness examined on behalf of the petitioner in the cross-examination has admitted that before the Conciliation Officer, petitioner offered to pay Rs.8,050/p.m. as interim relief.

¶36

Though there is an admission, there is nothing on record to say whether it was in consideration

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23483 WP No. 18786 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

respondent -workmen giving up their claim made and it is also not forthcoming from the record as to whether the settlement was arrived at between the parties to pay Rs.8,050/- and there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent -Union agreed for the said proposal. Thus, said statement cannot be the basis to pass an order on an application which is contested by the petitioner.

¶40

The Tribunal has passed an order based on the fact that the petitioner-Management has agreed to pay Rs.9,000/p.m. as interim relief to the ninety one workmen. It is relevant to notice that the petitioner -Management agreed to pay Rs.9,000/- p.m. as interim relief to ninety one other workmen because the said ninety one workmen gave up their other claims. Thus, the payment agreed to be granted to ninety one workmen based on a settlement cannot be the basis for the respondent -union to confer the similar benefit when respondent has not agreed for the settlement. The respondent is pursuing it's other demands also.

¶41

This being the position, this Court is of the view that the finding of the Tribunal based on the settlement of other

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23483 WP No. 18786 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Union is not a ground to extend the same benefit to the respondent -union.

¶45

After considering materials placed on record, this Court is of the view that interest of justice would met in case the petitioner is ordered to pay Rs.7,000/- p.m. as interim relief. It is made clear that the opinion expressed in this order are only confined to the interim application and the same shall not have any bearing on the merits of the claim made by respondent-union and the petitioner-management. Hence, the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i) Petition is allowed in part; ii) The impugned order dated 25.03.2025 in AID 51/2022 (Old) I.D.No.290/2024 (new) on the file of Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru is modified.

¶48

iii) The petitioner-Management shall pay Rs.7,000/- p.m. as interim relief to the respondent -Union.

¶49

iv) Four weeks time is granted to comply the order.

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23483 WP No. 18786 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

v) The dispute pending before the Tribunal Shall be decided on its own merit without being

¶53

influenced by the observation in this order.

¶54

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶55

YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 CT: BHK

¶56

8 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:23483 WP No. 18786 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶60

[M/S PARAGON POLYMERS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. PARAGON POLYMERS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED WORKERS UNION]

¶61

14.07.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶62

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶63

ORAL ORDER ON ‘FOR BEING SPOKEN TO’

¶64

This case was disposed of vide order dated 01.07.2025. The Writ Petition was allowed in part reducing interim relief of Rs.9,000/- per month granted by the Labour Court to Rs.7,000/- per month. It is now submitted that Rs.7,000/- payable for a period of three years commencing from 1.04.2021 to 17.06.2024, break up for each year covering three years is provided in the memo which is filed today before this Court.

¶65

Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that he has no objection to make necessary corrections pursuant to the memo which is now taken on record.

¶66

Hence, the payment to be made by the petitioner shall be paid by taking into consideration the break up of Rs.7,000/- mentioned in the memo dated 14.07.2025 for

¶67

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:23483 WP No. 18786 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

the period commencing from 01.04.2021 to 17.06.2024.

¶70

This order shall be read along with the final order.

¶71

It is also noticed that in para (iii) of the operative portion of the order, the interim relief is recorded in favour of respondent-Union. Instead of ‘respondent-Union’, it should be ‘concerned members of the respondent-Union’.

¶72

Both the parties shall cooperate for disposal of the dispute before the Labour Court.

¶73

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶74

CKL/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

M/S Paragon Polymers Products Private Limited v. Paragon Polymers Products Private Limited Workers Union

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Paragon Polymers Products Private Limited v. Paragon Polymers Products Private Limited Workers Union

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

Recaero India Private Limited Workers Union Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Hmt Machine Tools Limted (Mbx) Vs Controlloing Authority

Kalasa Estate, Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - II

Sri.Rajendra Vs the Divisional Manager

Shri Ashraph Korath Thadathil Vs M/S Tech Mahindra Co.

B Honnappa Vs Divisional Controller