Smt. Sakamma Vs the Management of M/S B.E.M.L.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE LABOUR COURT, MYSORE, PERTAINING TO ANNEX-E.QUASH THE AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, MYSORE, IN REF.NO.2/2011 DTD.4.2.2014 VIDE ANNEX-E SINCE THE AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT SUFFERS FROM SERIOUS ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACT OF THE RECORDS.DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER IN HER ORIGINAL POST WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:7983 WP No. 27136 of 2014

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed assailing the award dated 04.02.2014. In terms of the said award in Reference No.2/2011, the Labour Court, Mysore has rejected petitioner's claim under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act, 1947').

¶25

The point for reference that was framed to the Labour Court for adjudication was; whether the respondent-Management is justified in removing the petitioner on 01.11.2008 from the employment. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondent-Management is successful in establishing that the petitioner was working under the Contractor M/s Sri Raghavendra Caterers as contract labourer. On this premise, the claim was rejected.

¶26

The Labour Court did not consider as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any other relief as the claim related to her status as the workman under the respondent - Establishment is not established.

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:7983 WP No. 27136 of 2014

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would refer to the facts and would contend that the petitioner was working in a canteen, run and managed by the respondent - Establishment and it is his further submission that the Division Bench of this Court in BEML Limited vs. The President, Mysore Division General Labour Association and Another¹ , has come to the conclusion that the defence of "contract worker" and outsourcing of the work through a Contractor raised by the BEML Limited ( supra ), is not established.

¶30

It is his further submission that the aforementioned judgment has attained finality and the Special Leave Petition filed against the said judgment is dismissed. Referring to the said judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the petitioner being the employee in the canteen, run and managed by the BEML would also be a workman and the Labour Court could not have rejected the claim statement.

¶31

It is his further submission that once petitioner is held to be an employee of the BEML, there has to be further adjudication on the merits as to the entitlement of the

¶32

1 W.A. No.1980/2010 Connected with W.A. No.2179/210

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:7983 WP No. 27136 of 2014

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

petitioner and her claim has to be considered on merits. The same has not done by the Labour Court, and the Labour Court has to proceed to adjudicate whether the petitioner-workman is unjustly denied of employment and is entitled to any other relief if she is unjustly denied employment.

¶37

Thus, it is urged that the petition be allowed and the matter be remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration on the question relating to illegal denial of employment and the consequences to follow on account of alleged illegal denial.

¶38

The learned counsel for the respondent would defend the impugned award. It is his submission that the petitioner-Sakamma was never an employee of BEML. The canteen was run and managed by an independent contractor and Sakamma was employed by the independent contractor.

¶39

Placing reliance on the materials before the Labour Court, it has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot make a claim against BEML. Learned counsel for the respondent would also urge that the point for reference that was sought to be adjudicated by the Labour Court was as to

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:7983 WP No. 27136 of 2014

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

whether the termination of employment as to whether denial of work with effect from 01.11.2008 by C.S.Anand, the canteen Contractor and BEML M/s. Raghavendra Contractors and BEML is valid or not.

¶43

In addition to that, learned counsel would also urge that the Labour Court has rightly placed reliance on the two judgments of Apex Court. Ram Sarup (deceased) and other vs. Labour Court , Patiala² and Workmen of Nilgiri Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd vs. State of Tamil Nadu

¶44

& Ors.³ . Thus, learned counsel would urge that the petition has to be dismissed.

¶45

The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

¶46

It is not in dispute that the order in BEML Limited ( supra ), has attained finality and the Apex Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition challenging the order in the said Writ Appeals.

¶47

In the said Writ Appeals, the Division Bench of this

¶48

2 ( 1996) 73 FLA 1139 (P & H)

¶49

3 2004 LLR 351 (SC)

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:7983 WP No. 27136 of 2014

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Court has concluded that the BEML was running and managing the canteen when the dispute was raised by the Union representing the workmen who were working in the canteen run by the BEML. The dispute adjudicated in the said appeal was of the year 2003.

¶53

Under these circumstances, the Court has to conclude that the BEML was running the canteen in the year 2003.

¶54

After 2003, whether BEML was running a canteen or not is again is a question which is not yet adjudicated. If at all there was any decision taken by the BEML not to run the canteen after 2003 and to allow the canteen to be run by an outsourced agency, then it is for the BEML to prove the said contention. In that event, BEML has to establish the fact that Sakamma was employed after 2003 by the independent contractor. For this reason there has to be a fresh adjudication. If it is established that petitioner - Sakamma was employed prior to 2003, then the logical inference would be that Sakamma was employed by BEML.

¶55

These aspects require consideration. The Court is of

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:7983 WP No. 27136 of 2014

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

the view that impugned Award has to be set aside and the matter has to be adjudicated by the Labour Court. The Labour

¶60

Court shall consider the following;

¶61

(i) Whether petitioner - Sakamma was employed prior to 2003 or after 2003.

¶62

(ii) Whether after 2003, BEML has taken any decision not to run the canteen and to allow the canteen to be run by the indep endent contractor.

¶63

Based on the findings and the aforementioned two

¶64

points, the matter has to be decided on merits.

¶65

Hence the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed in part .

¶68

(ii) The impugned award dated 04.02.2014 on the file of the Labour Court, Mysore in Reference No.2/2011 is set aside.

¶69

(iii) The Labour Court shall afford opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence on the aforementioned two points and thereafter pass appropriate orders.

¶70

8 -

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC:7983 WP No. 27136 of 2014

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

(iv) Parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 17.03.2026 .

¶74

(v) Both parties are permitted to lead additional evidence, in addition to the evidence already recorded and it shall be taken into account while passing the final order.

¶75

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶76

CHS/GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Smt. Sakamma v. the Management of M/S B.E.M.L.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sakamma v. the Management of M/S B.E.M.L.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri C N Shashikiran Vs Smt Prema

Smt Lakshmi Vs the Secretary

Sri Malyadri G Vs the Secretary

M/S Reid and Taylor (I) Ltd., Vs Mr M Ravi

Vidyodaya Foundation Trust Vs Mr Rangaiah

M/S Kanoria Plaschem Limited Vs Mr S B Krishna