(BY SRI. K B NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) v. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The petition stands disposed of directing the respondent
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 1 r. 10; O. 2 r. 2
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ss. 25(O), 33(C)(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. The matter was adjourned on several occasions to explore the possibility of settlement between the parties, and the learned counsel for the respondent-Management on instructions submitted that a sum of Rs.20Lakh would be paid to members of the petitioner's Union i.e. 77 workmen and…
Judgment
Cause title
(BY SRI. K B NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER
AND:
2. THE MANAGEMENT OF J.L. MORRISON (INDIA) LIMITED, 9TH MAIL, TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 073, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ALL INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS A TRADE UNION REGD. UNDER TRADE UNIONS ACT, 1926 BENGALURU DISTRICT COMMITTEE, GHATE BHAVAN, G D PARK EXTENSION, VAYYALIKAVAL, BENGALURU-560 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. …RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V S NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. MURALIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION R/W ORDER 1 RULE 10 AND SEC. 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 11.01.2011 PASSED BY THE PRL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN REF.NO.6/2009, AS AT ANN-A & REMAND THE MATTER TO THE SAME COURT FOR DETERMINING THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ON MERITS & /OR TO PASS ANY OTHER
ORDER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20123 WP No. 11573 of 2012 ORDER Petitioner is a registered employees union, and the members of the union are erstwhile workmen of the respondent-company. The respondent-company closed the manufacturing activities on 9.4.1996, and filed an application under Section 25(O) of the Industrial Dispute Act before the Government. The Government accorded final approval for closure of the undertaking by order dated 22.6.2000.
In pursuance of the recovery certificate issued under Section 33(C)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the respondent- Management paid the amount on the basis of the last wages drawn i.e. 1995-96.
The grievance of the petitioner's Union is that the amount paid did not include increment, dearness allowance and other benefits, and raised a dispute under Section 10(1) (C) & (D) of the Industrial Dispute Act before the Labour Court. The Labour Court dismissed the dispute stating that the same is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC, since the petitioner had not claimed the benefit in the earlier proceedings under Section 33(C) (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The Apex Court in the case of Workmen of Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd -vs- Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. and another, AIR 1964 SC 728 has ruled that: "….. but it would be unreasonable to introduce considerations of res judicata as such, because for various reasons which constitute the special characteristics of industrial adjudication that said technical consideration would be inadmissible. As the Labour Appellate Tribunal itself has observed, the principle of gradual advance towards the living wage which industrial adjudication can never ignore, itself constitutes such a special feature of industrial adjudication that it renders the application of the technical rule of res judicata singularly inappropriate. " - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20123 WP No. 11573 of 2012
Merely because the petitioner had not sought for increment, dearness allowances from the date of closure of the unit till the approval of the closure by the Government under Section 25(O) Industrial Disputes Act, that cannot be a ground to deprive the claim of the workmen when they are legally entitled to as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - Management submits that the legal principles established by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The respondent No.1 - Management has cleared all the dues of the workmen concerned.
Operative part
The matter was adjourned on several occasions to explore the possibility of settlement between the parties, and the learned counsel for the respondent-Management on instructions submitted that a sum of Rs.20Lakh would be paid to members of the petitioner's Union i.e. 77 workmen and who are parties before the Labour Court in Reference No.6/2009 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Special Labour Court, Bengaluru, towards full and final settlement of their claims. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition stands disposed of directing the respondent No.1 to deposit a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of the claim of the petitioner - Union before the respondent No.2 by way of demand draft within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:20123 WP No. 11573 of 2012 ii) Upon deposit, the respondent No.2 to disburse the sum in favour of the workmen of the petitioner - Union i.e., concerned workmen in the order of reference subject to furnishing of identity proof. Sd/- JUDGE hr/BKM
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition stands disposed of directing the respondent
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 1 r. 10; O. 2 r. 2; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — ss. 25(O), 33(C)(1).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.