M/S Renuka Gas Service Vs Mallappa M Lumachye

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10742 WP No. 69301 of 2010

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 69301 OF 2010 (L-TER)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. RENUKA GAS SERVICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SHRI GURUDASAPPA V. KARINDI, "SADGURU", NEAR MARATHA MANDAL, H.M.C., NEHRU NAGAR, BELGAUM-590 010.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MALLAPPA M. LUMACHYE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NIL, C/O: AKSHAY R. APTE, ADVOCATE, VICE-PRESIDENT, SHOSHAN MUKTI DAL, BELGAUM - 590 002.

¶12

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶13

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD

¶14

BALKRISHNA JOREKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NIL, C/O: AKSHAY R. APTE, ADVOCATE, VICE-PRESIDENT, SHOSHAN MUKTI DAL, BELGAUM - 590 002.

¶15

(NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 SERVED)

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 30/01/2010 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN REFERENCE NO.84/1999 AS PER ANNEXURE-A, AS ILLEGAL AND VOID IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10742 WP No. 69301 of 2010

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The present petition is filed by the Management calling in question the order dated 30.01.2010 passed in Reference No.84/1999 by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli¹ .

¶25

The relevant facts in nutshell are that the respondents/ workmen were working with the petitioner/ Management as delivery men and the respondents along with other co-workers raised an Industrial Dispute in respect of demands before the Labour and Conciliation Officer, Belgaum vide application dated 29.12.1998. That, the conciliation ended in failure and thereafter the Management suspended four coworkers, as a result of which, the respondents as well as workmen went on strike w.e.f. 27.01.1999. Thereafter the strike was resolved w.e.f. 12.03.1999. That when the workmen returned to work, they were asked by the Management to sign certain letters, which were refused. The Management refused to take the claimants on duty unless the said letters were signed. Since the workmen did not sign the letters, the Management refused employment under oral orders. Hence, the workmen made a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Dispute

¶26

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10742 WP No. 69301 of 2010

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Act, 1947² . Thereafter the reference was registered vide Reference No.84/1999 for adjudication of the dispute. It is contended therein that the refusal of the Management to allow the workmen to work amounts to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Act and in violation of Section 25(F) of the Act as no compensation was paid in lieu of the notice at the time of termination.

¶30

The Management entered appearance before the Tribunal and contested the proceedings contending, inter alia, that the workmen were involved in various acts of misappropriation. It is further contended that the workmen were guilty of serious misconduct and that they did not report for duty despite several notices issued to them. It is contended that the Management has not terminated the services of the claimant and hence, is not liable to pay any backwages.

¶31

The Tribunal, consequent to the pleadings of the

¶32

parties, framed the following issues:

¶33

1. Whether the Respondent-Management M/s. Renuka Gas Services is justified in

¶34

2 Hereinafter referred to as “ the Act”

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10742 WP No. 69301 of 2010

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

dismissing the services of the claimant Sri.M.M.Lumanache 2)Balakrishna Horekar w.e.f.12.2.1999?

¶38

2. If not, to what reliefs the claimants is entitled?

¶39

In order to prove their case one witness was

¶40

examined on behalf of the workmen as W.W.1 and Ex.W1 to Ex.W6 were marked in evidence. On behalf of the Management, one witness was examined as M.W.1 and Ex.M1 to Ex.M7 were marked in evidence. The Tribunal, by its award dated 30.01.2010 partly accepted the reference and passed the following:

¶41

“AWARD

¶42

a) Award passed.

¶43

b) Reference is partly accepted.

¶44

c) The oral termination order dated 12.2.1999 is hereby set aside.

¶45

d) The respondent-management is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs. One lakh to each claimant in lieu of reinstatement.

¶46

e) The respondent-management has to comply with the award within two months from the date of publication of the award, failing which the respondentmanagement shall pay interest at 9% p.a., from the date of default.

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10742 WP No. 69301 of 2010

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

f) Send a copy of this award to the Government for publication.

¶51

g) The Government is hereby directed to publish the award within 30 days. from the date of receipt of copy of this award.

¶52

h) The Government is hereby directed to intimate the both parties about the publication of award by registered post acknowledgment due, without fail.”

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order of the Tribunal vehemently contends that the workmen were guilty of misconduct and the order of the Tribunal tantamounts to condoning the misdeeds. It is further contended that the workmen voluntarily absented themselves from duty and despite various letters requesting them to join duty, they did not report to the work. That there was no termination amounting to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be interfered with.

¶54

The respondents are served and unrepresented.

¶55

The submissions on behalf of the petitioner have

¶56

been considered and material on record have been perused.

¶57

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10742 WP No. 69301 of 2010

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

The question that arises for consideration is:

¶60

i) Whether the award dated 30.01.2010 passed in Reference No.84/1999 is liable to be interfered with?

¶61

Reg. Point No.(i):

¶62

The Tribunal, while appreciating the case of the parties and noticing the material on record, has recorded following findings:

¶63

“11. In fact on 3.2.99 show cause notice was issued to the present claimants alleging that you are involved in collusion with the managers and supplied cylinders to about 800 consumers Causing loss of Rs. 16.00 lakhs to the management. Further you are pressurising the management in unfair manner by using coersion and intimidation and further it is alleged that you have gone on illegal strike from 27.1.99 when you are aware that the conciliation proceedings are pending before the Conciliation officer, Belgaum, you are never deligent, honest and sincere in your duty and used to abstract 5 to 10 rupess front each customers against the supply of a cylindar. These misdeeds on our part are very serious hence you are called upon to show cause within 48 hours why disciplinary action could not be taken. Ex.W.1 is the notice issued on behalf of claimants to the respondent alleging termination from 12.2.1999. Ex.W.2 is the reply given by the respondent through lawyer

¶64

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10742 WP No. 69301 of 2010

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

under which pendency of dispute or conciliation proceedings before the authorities is admitted, further in the reply notice at para 5 it is alleged “my client is still ready to lake back your client in employment provided they withdraw the strike immediately”. By going through this particular sentence it is clear that the respondent directed the claimants to withdraw the strike. Subject to withdrawal of strike only respondent is ready to take back the claimants in employment. The implied meaning of the said sentence is that employment was refused to the claimant and the respondent is ready to take back the claimants in employment provided they withdraw the strike immediately. Thereby the say of the respondent that there is no oral termination of the claimant can not be accepted. On the other hand the contention of the claimants that they were orally terminated w.e.f. 12.2.1999 is to be accepted. Ex.W.3 is the demand notice given to the respondent by Vice President of Soshan Mukti Dal relating to the workers of M/s Renuka Gas Services.

¶67

12. So from this it is clear that the claimants and other workers of the respondent put forth their demands to the respondent-establishment, which has not been considered by the respondent, thereby Industrial Dispute was raised before Labour and Conciliation Officer, Belgaum at NO. 105/98-99. During the pendency of said conciliation proceedings the employees gone on strike and some of them withdrawn the strike by giving letter to the respondent management.

¶68

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10742 WP No. 69301 of 2010

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Whereas the claimants did not withdraw their strike, the respondent without proceeding with domestic enquiry based on the show cause notice, did not allowed the claimants to report for duty, inspite of legal notice issued to the respondent. Under the circumstances it is a clear case of refusal of employment or oral termination of the claimants from service and there is nothing on record to show that the claimant workmen abonded their services.

¶71

15. In view of the discussion made above it is clear that the respondent without following procedure U/sec. 25-F of I.D. Act orally terminated the services of the claimant-workmen, thereby the respondent is not justified in terminating the services of the claimants and the action of the respondent is liable to be set aside. Hence issue no.1 is answered in the negative.

¶72

16. Issue No.2. In view of the findings recorded on Issue no.1, the oral termination of claimants dated 12.2.99 is to be set aside. In view of this submission made by the counsel for the respondent that the work in the establishment is entrusted to contract labour, the question of reinstatement does not arise, on the other hand the claimant-workmen are entitled for compensation of Rs. One lakh each lieu of reinstatement.”

¶73

(emphasis supplied)

¶74

9 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10742 WP No. 69301 of 2010

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

It is forthcoming that the Tribunal after noticing the material on record has recorded a finding that in the present case there is nothing on record to show that the workmen have abandoned their services and that it is a clear case of refusal of employment or oral termination of the claimants from service.

¶78

Although it is vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workmen did not report for work despite being notified to do so, there is no material placed on record, which demonstrates the same. Further, it is pertinent to note that, to the notice issued on behalf of workmen alleging termination of service from 12.02.1999, (Ex.W1) the respondent has given a reply (Ex.W2) whereunder it has been stated that the Management was ready to take back the workmen to employment provided they withdraw the strike. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in recording a finding that employment was refused to the workmen.

¶79

Further, the Tribunal, after noticing that the Management has entrusted work to contract labour, has ordered a compensation of ₹1,00,000/- each, which is just and proper.

¶80

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10742 WP No. 69301 of 2010

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

The petitioner has failed in demonstrating that the

¶83

order passed by the Tribunal is in any manner perverse or capricious and is liable to be interfered with by this Court. The point No.(i) for consideration is answered in ‘negative’.

¶84

Having regard to the scope of interference of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition is dismissed as being devoid.

¶85

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶86

YAN CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

M/S Renuka Gas Service v. Mallappa M Lumachye

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Renuka Gas Service v. Mallappa M Lumachye

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Controller, Vs Chandrashekhar Veerappa Talwar

Divisional Controller Vs Ravi S/O. Mahaveer Gundappanavar

Dadapeer Bhanuvalli S/O. Shabbir Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

The Divisional Controller, Nekrtc, Koppal Vs Rachappa S/O.Basappa Kundkur

Smt. Lakshmi Vs Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation

M/S. Haj S.R. Umachagi @ Co. Coen Road, Hubli Vs Basheer Ahmed S/O. Nabisab Muddebehal