Writ Petition No. 57721 of 2014 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2478 WP No. 57721 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 57721 OF 2014 (L-PG) BETWEEN: 1. VANI VILASA SUGAR EMPLOYEES UNION @ HIRIYUR REPRESENTING THE SEASONAL WORKERS OF VANIVILAS CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR KARKANE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. V.V. VENKATESH, R/AT SREEDEVINILAYA, PADHMASALI KALYANA MANTAPA BACK SIDE MADHAKARINAGAR, CHELLEKERE TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-575 522. 2. V VENKATESH (I/C CANE CARRIER OPERATOR - MECHANICAL SECTION), S/O LATE VASANNA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA SMT R.B BHUVANESHWARI, W/O LATE VENKATESHA V AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, SREEDEVINILAYA, PADHMASALI KALYANA MANTAPA BACKSIDE MADHAKARINAGAR, CHELLEKERE TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-575522. 3. M V KANTHESWARA (PUMP ATTENDER - MECHANICAL SECTION) S/O LATE MATADA VEERAPPAIH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, HEMADALA, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577545. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2478 WP No. 57721 of 2014 4. M V CHANNAIAH (WEIGHBRIDGE OPERATOR - CRANE SECTION), S/O LATE B VEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, WATERTANK ROAD HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 579798. 5. M HANUMANTHAPPA, (SEASONAL MAZDOOR - MECHANICAL SECTION) S/O MALURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, WARD NO.16, KUMARABEEDI, GOPALAPURA, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577598. 6. L BALAPPA (GATE PASS WRITER JUNIOR CLERK - CANE SECTION), S/O LAKSHMAISH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, WARD NO.15, BEHIND GOVT. HOSPITAL, GOPALAPURA, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577598. (AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED: 17.09.2024)
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI A J SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONERS 1. THE DISTRICT CONTROLLER, VANIVILAS CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR KARKANE, DISTRICT CONTROLLER OFFICE, CHITRADURGA - 577501. 2. M/S VANIVILAS CO-OPERATIVES SUGAR FACTORY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTORS, HIRIYUR CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 572144. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2478 WP No. 57721 of 2014 3. THE COMMISSIONER, SUGAR CANE DEVELOPMENT AND SUGAR CANE DIRECTOR, C.B.A.B. COMPLEX, 5TH FLOOR, KAVIKERI BAHVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 4. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITIES, CHITRADURGA - 577501. (AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED: 11.04.2018) (BY SRI B T KOLLER, AGA FOR R1 R3 AND R4, SRI SAI SHAKTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TO THE PETITIONER WORKERS CALLED AS SEASONAL WORKERS, BEFORE THE R-1 DECLARE THE ACTION OF THE R-1 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This Petition is filed by the Union of Vanivilas Co-operative Sugar Factory, Hiriyur, Chitradurga District which is respondent No.2 in the present petition. Later five employees of 2nd respondent- Sugar Factory who also happen to be members of petitioner-Union got themselves impleaded as petitioners No.2 to 6. Petitioners No.2 to 6 came on record on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2478 WP No. 57721 of 2014 the premise that the petitioner-Union is not functioning. The petitioners claim that benefits payable to the members of the petitioner-Union were not given by 2nd respondent-Factory on the premise that some of the members of the petitioner-Union were seasonal workers. Petition is filed on the premise that the notification declaring 2nd respondent- Factory coming under the purview of the seasonal establishment is quashed by this Court in W.P.No.12586/1985 and connected matter in terms of order dated 10.01.1992. It is further stated that the said judgment is followed in W.P.No.2087/2009 and connected matters. 2. In view of the aforementioned declaration granted by this Court, 2nd respondent-Factory cannot claim the status of seasonal establishment and the employees working under 2nd respondent-Factory cannot be termed as seasonal employees. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the petition is filed with a prayer to direct 2nd respondent to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner and to pay all the statutory benefits payable to the members of the petitioner- Union on par with the services benefits paid to the regular permanent employees. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2478 WP No. 57721 of 2014 3. It is noticed that the representations at Annexures- E, F and G are addressed to Deputy Commissioner who is respondent No.4. The representations are addressed to Deputy Commissioner on the premise that the management of 2nd respondent- Factory is initially taken over by the Government. 4. It is an admitted factual position that later the Official Liquidator is appointed in a winding-up proceeding and the Official Liquidator has taken management of respondent No.2-Factory. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that since the notification declaring respondent No.2- Factory as seasonal factory is quashed, the employees of 2nd respondent cannot be termed as seasonal employees and all the employees should be termed as permanent employees and the benefits flowing from said categorization should flow to the employees of 2nd respondent-Factory. It is his further submission that since the representations are made to 4th respondent, the same has to be considered by 4th respondent the Official Liquidator. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2478 WP No. 57721 of 2014 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator would contend that the petition is not maintainable in as much as petitioner No.1 Union is not in existence as the registration granted to petitioner No.1 is cancelled vide order dated 20.01.2014. Said document is marked at Annexure-R1. Learned counsel would further urge that the petition is filed by the Union after the cancellation of the registration and when the five of the employees moved an application to come on record, as petitioners, objection is raised by the respondents contending that the application is not maintainable and objections are kept open to be decided at the time of final hearing. It is also his further contention that the factory is defunct and Official Liquidator has taken charge and the claim if any has to be adjudicated by the Official Liquidator in accordance with law. 7. Learned Government Advocate would support the submission of the Official Liquidator. 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2478 WP No. 57721 of 2014 9. Admittedly, the petition is filed by the Union on 15.12.2014. The document at Annexure-R-1 would indicate that registration of the Union is cancelled vide order dated 20.01.2014. Annexure-R-1 does not indicate that this order is communicated to the petitioner-Union, the reasons for cancellation is not forthcoming. Under which provision the Assistant Labour Commissioner has cancelled the registration is also not forthcoming. The fact that the Union was duly registered is not in dispute. It is also relevant to note that five of the employees of 2nd respondent-Factory have moved the application to come on record. 10. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the cause of the employees who are the members of the Union which undisputedly was duly registered at one point of time should be adjudicated in the manner known to law. 11. In addition to that, it is relevant to note that 5 of the employees have moved an application to come on record. As already noticed, 2nd respondent is under the process of winding-up and Official Liquidator is already appointed. The - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2478 WP No. 57721 of 2014 Official Liquidator is under the obligation to adjudicate the claim against the Company in the manner known to law. 12. This Court is passing this order in view of the stand taken by the respondents that all the dues of the employees named of Annexure-H is already satisfied. Whether it is duly satisfied or not has to be now adjudicated in the light of notification declaring 2nd respondent Factory as seasonal Factory being quashed by the Co-ordinate of this Court. And as Official Liquidator is appointed, he has to adjudicate the claim. 13. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be secured in case the Official Liquidator is directed to consider the representations of all the employees of 2nd respondent-factory (Annexure-H). 14. Hence, the following:
Decision
ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The Official Liquidator of 2nd respondent- Factory is directed to consider the representations keeping in mind the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2478 WP No. 57721 of 2014 declaration of the status of 2nd respondent in terms of the order dated 10.01.1992 in W.P. No.12586/1985. (iii) It is also made clear that this order is confined to employees named in Annexure-H. (iv) The process to be completed within a period of three months. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45