SRI. S. NARAYANAPPA v. TERRA-FIRMA BIO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

SRI. G. GANAPATHY, S/O LATE GURUVAIAH GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT KYASARAGUPPE VILLAGE, BILWARADAHALLI, BANNERGHATTA, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU. (BY SRI. ARUN K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TERRA-FIRMA, BIO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, NO.4, RANKA PARK NO.5, LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027. (BY SRI. K.N. MOHAN, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:06.04.2018 PASSED IN REFERENCE NO.29/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, III ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:8901 WP No. 58266 of 2018 C/W WP No. 58265 of 2018 ORDER In both the above writ petitions, the petitioners are before this Court, questioning the Award dated 06.04.2018 in Reference No.30/2016 and Reference No.29/2016 respectively on the file of the III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, by which, the petitioners claim petitions and reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short '1947 Act') stands rejected.

2. Heard Sri. Arun.K.S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.N.Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent in both the petitions. Perused the writ petitions papers.

3. Both the petitioners claim that they were employed by the respondent-Company as Supervisors in the year 1998 and 1995 respectively. They worked continuously since 1995 and 1998 and they were paid initially Rs.14,000/- and Rs.15,352/- per month respectively and at the time of their termination in July-2015, they were receiving a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in July-2015, the respondent refused - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:8901 WP No. 58266 of 2018 C/W WP No. 58265 of 2018 employment to the petitioners. As the respondent refused employment, the petitioners raised dispute and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Bengaluru in Reference Nos.29 & 30/2016. Before the Labour Court, the petitioners examined themselves as WW.1 and marked documents at Exs.W1 to W9. In both the References, the Management also examined MW.1 and also marked documents at Exs.M1 to M6. The respondent- Management in its counter statement denied the employment of the petitioners and stated that there is no jural relationship of employer and employee. The Labour Court under impugned Awards, rejected the References holding that the petitioners failed to prove that they were workmen as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short '1947 Act').

4. Sri. Arun.K.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that Award of the Labour Court is unsustainable and he further submits that the Labour Court failed to appreciate the materials placed on record. He submits that Exs.W2, W3 and W4 would make it clear that the petitioners were working as Supervisors in the respondent- Company. Learned counsel would further submit that the - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:8901 WP No. 58266 of 2018 C/W WP No. 58265 of 2018 petitioners were though offered salary of Rs.20,000/-, petitioner in W.P.No.58265/2018 was receiving a sum of Rs.14,000/- per month and petitioner in W.P.No.58266/2018 was receiving a sum of Rs.15,352/-. Learned counsel would further submit that in the evidence of MW.1, he admitted that one Nanjundappa, signatory to the documents was partner of the respondent. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that the petitioners have proved they worked respondent-Company and they are workmen of the respondent- Company. Learned counsel would further submit that the Labour Court erroneously held that the petitioners have not proved that they are workmen of the respondent-Company. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have placed materials on record to prove that they were workmen of the respondent-Company and their termination is wholly illegal. Learned counsel further submits that no notice was ever issued to the petitioners before they were refused work by the respondent-Company. Thus, learned counsel prays for allowing the References by setting aside the impugned Awards. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:8901 WP No. 58266 of 2018 C/W WP No. 58265 of 2018

5. Per contra, Sri. K.N.Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent-Company would submit that the petitioners were never engaged by the respondent-Company and the petitioners have failed to prove that they were workmen of the respondent-Company. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent had not authorized one Sri. Nanjundappa to sign or issue any document. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have failed to prove that they are workmen of the respondent-Company in terms of Section 2(s) of the 1947 Act. As there is no material to establish that the petitioners were workmen of the respondent-Company, the Labour Court is right in dismissing the References. Thus, he prays for dismissal of these writ petitions.

6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the writ petitions papers, the only point falls for consideration is as to "Whether the petitioners would be entitled for any relief?" Answer to the said point would be in the 'Affirmative'. The petitioners though not entitled reinstatement, would be entitled for compensation for the following reasons: - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:8901 WP No. 58266 of 2018 C/W WP No. 58265 of 2018

7. The petitioners claim that they were engaged as workmen i.e., Supervisors by the respondent-Company in the year 1998 and 1995 and they continuously worked till July-

2015. It is specifically stated that though petitioners were offered salary of Rs.20,000/-, Sri.G.Ganapathy, petitioner in W.P.No.58265/2018 was receiving a sum of Rs.14,000/- per Sri.S.Narayanappa, petitioner W.P.No.58266/2018 was receiving a sum of Rs.15,352/- per month. In that regard, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on Exs.W3 and W4. Exs.W3 and W4 are signed by Sri. Nanjundappa, authorized signatory of the respondent. The respondent-Management examined one Sri. R.Ganesh, Managing Director as MW.1. In his evidence, he states that he had not authorized Nanjundappa to issue any certificate but admits that Nanjundappa was partner of the respondent. When documents at Exs.W3 and W4, certificate of experience are signed by one of the partner of the respondent, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not employed by the respondent- Company.

8. Documents, Exs.W2, W3 and W4 are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the petitioners were workmen of - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:8901 WP No. 58266 of 2018 C/W WP No. 58265 of 2018 the respondent-Company and they fulfill the criteria to satisfy Section 2(s) of the 1947 Act. Section 25F of the 1947 Act, requires one month notice in writing, indicating the reasons for retrenchment if workmen is continuously in service for not lesser than one year under an employer. In the instant case, the petitioners were working in the respondent-Company since 1998 and 1995 and certificate at Ex.W2 would indicate that the petitioner-Sri. S.Narayanappa was working since 01.09.1996. As the termination or refusal of work to the petitioners is without issuing any notice, though the petitioners may not be entitled for reinstatement due to lapse of time, they would be entitled for compensation. Learned counsel Sri. Mohan places reliance on the decision in ILR 2001 KAR 94 of the Co-ordinate Bench to say that the reference could be made only by Union and not by individual. A perusal of the above decision would make it clear that dispute relating to regularization and absorption can be made by Union and not by an individual. In the instant case, the petitioners are questioning termination or refusal of work by the respondent. Therefore, the Reference would be maintainable. - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:8901 WP No. 58266 of 2018 C/W WP No. 58265 of 2018

9. The petitioners have served the respondent for more than 15 years. Hence, I deem it appropriate to award 20 months wages to the petitioners as compensation i.e., Rs.14,000/- per month to petitioner in W.P.No.58265/2018 and Rs.15,000/- per month to petitioner in W.P.No.58266/2018. The said compensation shall be paid within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above, writ petitions stands disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28