Writ Petition No. 57049 of 2015 · Karnataka High Court · 2024

Judgment

7. SRI GURUPRASAD S.L. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O. K. LINGAIAH, SRI HANUMANTHU T. AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O. THAMME GOWDA, SRI PRASANNA Y.K. AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O. HANUMAIAH ALIAS KARIAPPA, SRI MAHESHA B.V. AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O. VENKATE GOWDA, SRI HANUMESHA K.C. AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O. CHIKKANNA, SRI LAKSHMI NARASHIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O. HOBHALAIAH, SRI SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O. MARIDEVAIAH, MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34397 WP No. 57049 of 2015 C/W WP No. 17692 of 2018

9. SRI HANUMANTHE GOWDA K.H. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. HANUMEGOWDA, SRI THIMAPPA H.T. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O. THIMMAIAH,

10. SRI KUMARA .J AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O. JAVAREGOWDA,

11. SRI LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. MARIGOWDA,

12. SRI HANUMANTHAIAH Y.V. AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O. VENKATESH,

13. SRI SOMASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O. BASAVAIAH,

14. SRI NARENDRA D.N. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O. NARASIMHEGOWDA,

15. SRI MANOHARAN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O. RAJAIAH,

16. SRI RAMESHA Y.M. AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O. MADEGOWDA,

17. SRI BASAVARAJA T.P. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O. PUTTEGOWDA,

18. SRI SHANKARA Y.C. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. CHIKKLINGAIAH, - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34397 WP No. 57049 of 2015 C/W WP No. 17692 of 2018

19. SRI RAVI .N AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O. NAGAIAH,

20. SRI VERANNARADHAYA .K AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O. KUMARARADHYA

21. SRI MAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O. MAYIGASHETTY,

22. SRI SHANKAR Y.H. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. PIDEGOWDRU HANUMAIAH

23. SRI RAVIKUMARA S.A. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O. ANKEGOWDA,

24. SRI PANCHALINGA K.P. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O. PANCHEGOWDA,

25. SRI NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O. CHIKKAPUTTEGOWDA,

26. SRI NARASHIMAMURTHY S.N. AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O. LAKSHMINARAYANA,

27. SRI MAHADEVAPPA H.N. AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O. NINGAPPA,

28. SRI SHIVALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O. H. NINGEGOWDA,

29. SRI VENKAPPA TALWAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O. AYYAPPA TALWAR, - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:34397 WP No. 57049 of 2015 C/W WP No. 17692 of 2018

30. SRI SHIVAKUMAR SWAMY .B AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O. C. BASAVARAJAPPA,

31. SRI KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O. SIDDAIAH,

32. SRI SHIVARAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O. PUTTASHETTY,

33. SRI HANUMANTHA Y.C. AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O. MOLLEKENCHANA DEVAIAH,

34. SRI MALLESHA K.M. AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O. MALLAIAH,

35. SRI NARASHIMARAJU S.C. AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O. CHIKKADASAHEGGADE,

36. SRI MANJU K.C. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. CHOWDEGOWDA

37. SRI SHIVARAJU .K AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O. KARIAYAIAH,

38. SRI THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O. HATTIGOWDA,

39. SRI SHIVARUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O. MADAPPA,

40. SRI PRASADA M.P.N. AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O. K. PURUSHOTHAM, - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34397 WP No. 57049 of 2015 C/W WP No. 17692 of 2018

41. SRI BANDI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O. JAVAREGOWDA,

42. SRI NINGANNA .C AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHIKKANNA

43. SRI SHIVARAMU D.K. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNA

44. SRI MANCHE GOWDA H.S. AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O. SIDDAPPA

45. SRI SUBASH Y.S. AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O. LATE SHANKARALINGEGOWDA,

46. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR S.M. AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O. LATE MALLEGOWDA,

47. SRI KRISHNE GOWDA M.S. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. SANNEGOWDA,

48. SRI BASAVARAJA H.E. AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O. ERAIAH

49. SRI RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. CHIKKAJAVARAIAH

50. SRI NINGARAJA .K AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O. KALASHETTY,

51. SRI JAYAKUMARA Y.S. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. SRINIVASAIAH, - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:34397 WP No. 57049 of 2015 C/W WP No. 17692 of 2018

52. SRI JOKEN SAGAYANATHAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O. ANTONY,

53. SRI SHANBOG B.L. AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O. LAKSHMINARAYANA,

54. SRI MAHESHA .C AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O. CHANNAPPA,

55. SRI BORE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O. JAVAREGOWDA,

56. SRI PUTTARAMARADHYA .S AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O. LATE SIDDARAMARADHYA,

57. SRI SHIVASHANKAR .B AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O. BORAIAH,

58. SRI SHIVALINGAIAH .M AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O. MADAIAH,

59. SRI PUTTASWAMY Y.M. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. MOTAIAH,

60. SRI RAMAIAH T.P. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O. PUTTAIAH,

61. SRI BOREGOWDA .S AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O. SIDDEGOWDA,

62. SRI PRASADA S.N. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O. K.V. MAHALINGA BHATTA, - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:34397 WP No. 57049 of 2015 C/W WP No. 17692 of 2018

63. SRI PUTTASWAMY Y.H. AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O. LATE NATHAPPA ALIAS HANUMAIAH,

64. SRI CHIKKASIDEEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O. CHIKKA ANKEGOWDA,

65. SRI SUNDARA H.C. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. CHIKKA BORAIAH,

66. SRI SOMASHEKAR .K AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O. KEMPEGOWDA,

67. SRI MANJU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O. KARIYAPPA,

68. SRI LINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O. LATE NINGANNA MOGAIAH,

69. SRI NAGARAJA D.T. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. THIMMEGOWDA ALIAS ANNAIAH,

70. SRI NAGARAJAMURTHY Y.S. AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O. NINGAIAH,

71. SRI YOGESHA Y.M. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O. MOTALINGEGOWDA,

72. SRI GIRIDHARA .R AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. RAJANNA M.K.

73. SRI VISHWANATH SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. K.S. CHANDRASHEKARASASTRY, - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:34397 WP No. 57049 of 2015 C/W WP No. 17692 of 2018

74. SRI MANJUNATHA .D AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O. DEVEGOWDA,

75. SRI SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. SIDDEGOWDA,

76. SRI BALAVEDRA SIMON AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O. WILLION RAJ,

77. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY S.G. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAIAH,

78. SRI BASAVARAJ B.K. AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O. B. KARIYAPPA,

79. SMT. BHARATHI AGED ABOUT 35 DYEARS, W/O. LATE RAVI Y.H.

80. SRI NINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, F/O. LATE GOPALA Y.N. ALL ARE R/O. C/O. M/S. KARNATAKA MALLADI BIOTICS EMPLOYEES UNION, KALYANA BHAVANA BUILDING, THYAGARAJA ROAD, MYSURU – 570 023.

81. M. SHIVARAJU S/O. SHRI MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.766, DODDARASINAKERE, CHIKKAMARIGOWDA NAGARA, CHIKKARASANIKERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 571 422. - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:34397 WP No. 57049 of 2015 C/W WP No. 17692 of 2018

82. K.L. CHANNAKESHAVA S/O. SHRI LINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALMANTIDODDI, KERGODI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 571 446. (AMENDED AS PER ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 14/08/2024) ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI N.G. PHADKE, ADVOCATE FOR P-14, P-16, P-19, P-20, P-30 TO P-41, P-28, P-31, P-32, P-34, P-43 TO P-50, P-51, P-53 TO P-58, P-60 TO P-69, P-42, P-51, P-59, P-70, P-52, P-70, P-71 TO P-79, P-80; SMT. AVANI CHOKSHI, ADVOCATE FOR P-7, P-12, P-13, P-15, P-18, P-21, P-22, P-27, P-29, P-30, P-33 & P-35; SRI MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR P-81 & P-82) AND: M/S. KARNATAKA MALLADI BIOTICS LTD., NOW KNOW AS EMBIO LTD., POLT NO.71-74, TUBINKERE INDUSTRIAL AREA, MANDYA-571402 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. (BY *SRI J. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT MYSORE; QUASH THE AWARD DATED 21.07.2015 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT MYSORE IN REF. NO.156/2010 AT ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS AND THE TWO DECEASED WORKMEN ARE CONCERNED; HOLD THAT LAYING OF THE 84 WORKMEN w.e.f. 22.06.2009 BY THE RESPONDENT (AS REFERENCED FOR ADJUDICATION AND REFERRED TO IN ANNEXURE-A, AWARD) IS ILLEGAL AND ETC. IN W.P. NO.17692/2018 BETWEEN: THE WORKMEN, KARNATAKA MALLADI BIOTICS *Corrected vide Chamber Order dated 10.10.2024 - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:34397 WP No. 57049 of 2015 C/W WP No. 17692 of 2018 EMPLOYEE’S UNION, NOW CALLED AS EMBIO LTD., PLOT NO.71-74, TUBINAKERE INDL. AREA, MANDYA – 571 402 REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY KARNATAKA MALLADI BIOTICS EMPLOYEES UNION, AGATAHALLI, D.B. HALLI POST, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. (BY SRI N.G. PHADKE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT, M/S. KARNATAKA MALLADI BIOTICS LTD., NOW CALLED AS EMBIO LTD., PLOT NO.71-74, TUBINAKERE INDL. AREA, MANDYA – 571 402, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. (BY SRI J. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE LABOUR COURT, MYSURU; QUASH THE AWARD DATED 15.07.2017 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, MYSURU IN REFERENCE NO.23/2016 AT ANNEXURE-N; HOLD THAT THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENT IN RETRENCHING THE 8 WORKMEN W.E.F 01.03.2010 IS ILLEGAL AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:34397 WP No. 57049 of 2015 C/W WP No. 17692 of 2018 ORAL ORDER Since common questions are involved, both the petitions are taken up together.

2. Petitioners-workmen are seeking following reliefs in W.P.No.57049/2015: “(i) quash the award dated 21.07.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Mysore in Reference No.156/2010 at Annexure: A, in so far as the Petitioners and the two deceased workmen are concerned; and, (ii) hold that laying off the 84 workmen w.e.f.

22.06.2009 by the Respondent (as referenced for adjudication and referred to in Annexure: A, Award) is illegal; and, (iii) hold that the action of the Respondent in retrenching the 84 workmen w.e.f. 06.08.2009 (as referenced for adjudication and referred to in Annexure: A, Award) is illegal; and, (iv) declare that the Petitioners workmen 1 to 78 are deemed to be in the services of the Respondent - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:34397 WP No. 57049 of 2015 C/W WP No. 17692 of 2018 and the two deceased workmen viz. Ravi Y.H. & Gopal Y.N. till their death were in the services of the Respondent with continuity of services with all the consequential benefits; and, (V) direct the Respondent to pay full back-wages to the Petitioners 1 to 78 for the period from

22.06.2009; and, (vi) direct the Respondent to pay full back-wages from 22.06.2009 upto the date of death of the two deceased workmen viz. Ravi Y.H. & Gopal Y.N. to the Petitioners Sl. Nos.79 & 80, respectively with terminal benefits; and, (vii) grant such reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost in the interest of justice.”

3. Petitioner-Union is seeking for the following reliefs in W.P.17692/2015: “(i) quash the award dated 15.07.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru in Reference No.23 of 2016 at Annexure: N; and, - 13 - NC: 2024:KHC:34397 WP No. 57049 of 2015 C/W WP No. 17692 of 2018 (ii) hold that the action of the Respondent in retrenching the 8 workmen w.e.f. 01.03.2010 is illegal; and, (iii) declare that the 8 workmen retrenched w.e.f.

01.03.2010 are deemed to be in the services of the Respondent with continuity of services with all the consequential benefits; and, (iv) direct the Respondent to pay full back-wages to the 8 workmen w.e.f. 01.03.2010; and, (v) grant such reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost in the interest of justice.”

4. Petitioners are assailing legality and correctness of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ for short), whereby, the reference was rejected holding that the respondent – management was justified in retrenching the workers after laying off factory by paying - 14 - NC: 2024:KHC:34397 WP No. 57049 of 2015 C/W WP No. 17692 of 2018 retrenchment compensation. In the claim statement, the petitioners urged and pleaded that the respondent- management had employed more than 100 workmen at the relevant point of time and period and as such, laying off/terminating these 92 workmen without obtaining permission from the appropriate Government is illegal. The points of reference raised by the Government are as under: “(i) Whether the establishment having more than 100 workmen, the action of the respondent in laying off workers on 22.02.2009 and thereafter, retrenching 84 workers with effect from 06.09.2009 justified, and retrenchment of 8 workmen with effect from 01.03.2010 by order dated 26.11.2010 was justified if not, what compensation workers were entitled to? (ii) Whether the act of respondent in initially declaring lay off, then retrenching the 92 workmen and later 84 and 8 workmen, on the ground of lack of raw material and inability to sell produced items was justified, and if not, then what compensation the workmen are entitled to?”

5. The counter was filed by the respondent – management, inter alia, contending that the company had - 15 - NC: 2024:KHC:34397 WP No. 57049 of 2015 C/W WP No. 17692 of 2018 problems of tying-up funds for financing the project to set up at Mandya and due to the delay on the part of the financial institution sanctioning funds, commissioning of plant was delayed and the company could not carry on business for nearly two years from 1995 to 1997. In view of non-getting of adequate financial support from June 1997 to August 1998, the operation was restarted in August 1998 with the support the associate company M/s.Emmellen Biotech Pharmaceutical Ltd., and the operations were carried out on a very low capacity utilization and M/s. Karnataka Malladi Biotics Ltd., (“KMBL”) incurred heavy loss during 1997-98 and 1998-99, the company was declared as a sick industry by BIFR and IDBI was appointed as operating agency and in the year 2003, BIFR sanctioned the scheme of rehabilitation to the company with consent of all the lenders, and the company was de-registered from the purview of BIFR as a sick industry. It suffered huge loss and as per the audited accounts, accumulated losses were increased. The problems faced by the respondent- - 16 - NC: 2024:KHC:34397 WP No. 57049 of 2015 C/W WP No. 17692 of 2018 company were further compounded from the petitioner- workmen in the form of absenteeism and frequent strikes resulting in the loss of production. The methods adopted by the company, requesting the workers to accept for 20% reduction in the wages, announcing Voluntary Retirement Scheme (“VRS”) and the respondent – company facing problems of non-availability of raw material for the production and accumulation of stocks, it had no option, but to lay-off the workmen as supervisory staff from

22.06.2009 and subsequently, retrenched 84 out of 92 workmen vide Form - P dated 06.08.2009 and at the time of laying-off, the management was engaged 92 workers, register of attendance for the previous 12 months clearly indicates that the company had engaged only 92 workers and it never engaged 121 workmen as alleged by the petitioners.

6. The Tribunal, by considering the material on record, arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners have failed to establish that the management has employed - 17 - NC: 2024:KHC:34397 WP No. 57049 of 2015 C/W WP No. 17692 of 2018 more than 100 workers as on the date of declaring lay off and retrenching 84 and 8 workers and rejected their reference.

7. Learned counsel the petitioners Sri N.G.Phadke and Smt. Avani Chokshi would contend and urge the following grounds: i. Taking this Court to the definition of ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act” for short) submits that even casual workers would amount to workmen, if they had worked for over 240 days. ii. That even the workers employed through contract would be workmen through their employer and would be respective contractor. iii. That the workmen examined 32 witnesses in support of their claim and the workmen consistently took a stand and deposed that total number of workmen - 18 - NC: 2024:KHC:34397 WP No. 57049 of 2015 C/W WP No. 17692 of 2018 employed in the establishment in the year before the retrenchment exceeded 100 as stated below: Permanent workmen on rolls Workmen who had transferred on

17.09.2009/01.10.2009 92 17 Casual workers for packing / manufacturing 28 employed directly on contract basis, but not through contractor Directly employed security guards 17 Security guards employed through contractor Over 35 iv. Taking to the evidence of WW.1, it is stated that 17 security guards employed by the respondent worked continuously for a period from 01.06.2008 to

31.03.2009 and taking to the cross-examination of MW.1 it is submitted that the management witness has admitted that he has appointed the security people to look after the Mandya plant. That from 22.06.2009 and 06.08.2009, there were 137 workmen directly employed by the respondent – company and the evidence of WW.1 has not been challenged by the respondent-management. - 19 - NC: 2024:KHC:34397 WP No. 57049 of 2015 C/W WP No. 17692 of 2018 v. That the Tribunal has not applied its judicial mind to the provisions of the ID Act in particular Sections 2(s), 25K, 25M and 25N which has resulted in unjust passing of the impugned order. vi. That the Tribunal ought to have taken into account directly appointed 17 security guards and 28 workmen appointed to discharge the duties of manufacturing and packing as sweeper and office boy on contract basis and the total number of workmen employed by the respondent- management on an average per day for the preceding twelve months would have been 137. vii. That an adverse inference has to be drawn in lieu of allowing of I.A.No.1. Elaborating the submission, it is stated that the petitioners had filed I.A.No.1 dated

12.12.2001 before the Tribunal calling for the documents from the respondent-management as to the 28 named employees who were appointed on contract basis month wise salary and wages paid to them for the period from

01.04.2007 to 31.03.2010 and the details of month wise - 20 - NC: 2024:KHC:34397 WP No. 57049 of 2015 C/W WP No. 17692 of 2018 salary paid in respect of 17 employees for the period from

01.06.2008 to 31.03.2008 and the other records, was allowed by the Tribunal and since the respondent did not file objections IA.No.1 and respondent- management having not complied with the direction of the Tribunal and withholding the relevant documents called for, as the first evidence being the management and the management having withheld the same, there would be reversal of burden of proof and adverse inference would be required to be taken against the respondent- management. viii. The respondent - management has only produced the attendance of 92 permanent workers at Ex.M-5 to M-31 only. Attendance register of remaining employees and pertaining to the permanent employees for the said period and the other records pertaining to the employees were not produced by the respondent, despite specific direction and presumption arises against the respondent-management for non-production of - 21 - NC: 2024:KHC:34397 WP No. 57049 of 2015 C/W WP No. 17692 of 2018 attendance register and the muster rolls for the said period and the workmen having discharged their initial burden by production of the documents possession. ix. The respondent without taking prior permission of the Government for laying off the workmen on

22.06.2009 and retrenching 84 workmen on 06.08.2009 is in violation of Section 25F and 25N of the ID Act and such laying-off and retrenchment becomes void. The consequence of failure to take prior permission as mandate by Section 25F, 25M and 25N, the petitioner – workmen would be entitled for reinstatement with full backwages, continuity of service and all consequential benefits as they had never retrenched/laid-off. In support of their contentions reliance is placed on the following decisions: (i) Devinder Singh vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur1 (Devinder Singh) 1 2011 (2) SCC (L&S) 153 - 22 - NC: 2024:KHC:34397 WP No. 57049 of 2015 C/W WP No. 17692 of 2018 (ii) Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Orissa Road Transport Co. Ltd., vs. Ramesh Chandra Gouda and another2 (Ramesh Chandra Gouda) (iii) Bihar State Electricity Board and another vs. Ram Deo Prasad Singh and others3 (Ram Deo Prasad Singh) (iv) Hussainbhai, Calicut vs. The Alath Factory Thezhilali Union, Kozhikode and others4 (Hussainbhai) (v) Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar vs. Mohamed Haji Latif and others5 (Gopal Krishnaji) (vi) Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd., vs. State of U.P. and others6 (Bharat Heavy Electrical) (vii) Gauri Shankar vs. State of Rajasthan7 (Gauri Shankar) (viii) Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and others vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and others8 (Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd) ORDER (i) Writ petitions are dismissed. (ii) The impugned orders passed by the Tribunal stand confirmed. Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16