Writ Petition No. 3899 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9936 WP No. 3899 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3899 OF 2025 (L-RES) BETWEEN: THE WORKMEN OF SJS ENTERPRISES LTD RERPESENTED BY SJS ENTERPRISES LTD., WORKERS UNION (REGISTERED TRADE UNION, REGISTERED UNDER TRADE UNION'S ACT 1926) (REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT) NO.54, SRIDHARA BUILDING 2ND FLOOR, KAADUMANE CIRCLE BHIMANAHALLI, BIDADI RAMANAGARA TALUQ AND DISTRICT 562 109 (BY SRI. L MURALIDHAR PESHWA.,ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR VIKAS SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560 001 2. THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S SJS ENTERPPRISES LIMITED (A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9936 WP No. 3899 of 2025 THE COMPANY S ACT 1956) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SITE NO. 28/P16 AGARA VILLAGE, SITE NO. 85/P6, BM KAVALU VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU 560 082 …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. PRASHANTH B.K., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1, TO PROHIBIT THE LOCK OUT CAUSED TO THE WORKMEN. AS PER ANNEXURE-D, DATED 08/07/2024, BY THE R2; DIRECT THE R2 TO CONTINUE TO EMPLOY THE PETITIONER WORKMEN WHOSE NAMES ARE ANNEXED IN ANNEXURE-A G, AS THE REFUSAL TO PROVIDE THEM THE WORK IS ILLEGAL AND ALSO UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a registered Trade Union of the Workmen [the Union] with the second respondent, has filed this petition for directions which read as under: [i] For declare that the second Respondent – the Management’s decision to refuse work - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9936 WP No. 3899 of 2025 to the workmen mentioned in Annexure A G illegal and unconstitutional. [ii] For directions to the First Respondent [the Department of Labour, State Government] to ensure that the Second respondent does not refuse work to the workmen mentioned in the Notice [Annexure-D] dated 08.07.2024. Mr. L. Muralidhar Peshwa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Rashmi Rao, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent, and Mr. Prashanth B. K., the learned counsel for the second respondent, are heard for final disposal of the petition. 2. It emerged from their submissions that there is a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 at the instance of the petitioner which is pending consideration with the concerned Labour Court in Reference No.2/2025. This Reference arises from an - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9936 WP No. 3899 of 2025 allegation of Hunger Strike declared by the Union and the second respondent’s purported consequential action. This Court must observe that with this Reference pending, there cannot be any observation on the merits of the respective action though there are rival submissions, but the question for consideration is: whether the petition must be disposed of with a positive direction with the concerned workmen stating that they will report to duty subject to the outcome in the Reference and the second respondent also stating that the workmen will be permitted to report to duty. 3. However, consensus is only apparent as there is a difference in opinion with the second respondent insisting upon an individual undertaking by each of the workmen and the workmen contending that they cannot be called - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9936 WP No. 3899 of 2025 upon to sign an individual undertaking. In fact, the workmen’s willingness to report to duty and the second respondent’s decision to permit them to report to duty is because of the conciliation of the proceedings [as per Annexure - O, which is dated 11.09.2024] and the workmen’s willingness to give a collective undertaking [as per Annexure - P]. 4. This Court has heard Mr. L. Muralidhar Peshwa and Mr. B. K. Prashanth, and has opined that the undertaking, even if it is signed individually, will essentially read that the workmen will not refuse food from the canteen and that they will follow discipline because there cannot be any precipitative action by either when the Reference is pending consideration. When this is put to both Mr. L. Muralidhar Peshwa and Mr. B. K. Prashanth, they have sought time for - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9936 WP No. 3899 of 2025 response, and accordingly, the petition is listed today. 5. Sri. B. K. Prashanth has filed a Memo placing on record the Schedule in which the identified workmen can report to duty in batches. In continuation of this Memo, the learned counsel submits that the workmen can report subject to filing individual undertaking on not refusing food at the canteen and observing discipline and in three batches as they will be introduced to the new products and on the importance of discipline. When queried, the learned counsel submits that the Schedule [which reads as below] is developed after obtaining the availability of the concerned experts and the feasibility of imparting training. Sri. L. Muralidhar Peshwa does not object to the Schedule, but only requests for an - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9936 WP No. 3899 of 2025 expedited date of reporting. The schedule mentioned in this Memo reads as follows: Batch No. I II III Date No. of Workmen 20.03.2025 24.03.2025 02.04.2025 Total 55 55 54 164 6. This Court is inclined to dispose of the petition directing the second respondent to enable the workmen to report to duty in terms of the Schedule as above, and insofar as the undertaking is concerned, this Court must observe that the reiterated requirement of an undertaking despite this Court's opinion as aforesaid would be superfluous and wholly unnecessary. The workmen concerned must maintain discipline and not be confrontational if they desire to avoid consequential action. In the light of the afore, the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9936 WP No. 3899 of 2025
Decision
ORDER i. The petition stands disposed of calling upon the second respondent - the Management of M/s. SJS Enterprises Limited - to ensure that the 164 workmen are permitted to report to the duty according to the Schedule as above. ii. This Court must observe that the second respondent will be at liberty to address every instance of indiscipline/misconduct that could be once the workmen report to duty. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB