IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.26406 OF 2019 (L-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S BANGALORE STABLE EMPLOYEES WELFARE SOCIETY NO.52, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI M.P. MAHESH AGED 57 YEARS … PETITIONER (BY SHRI. S.N. MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. S. ROOPASRI, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE PRESIDENT KARNATAKA RACE KUDHURE KARMIKARA KSHEMABHIVRUDDHI SANGA NO.103, 1ST FLOOR, EAST WING 2ND CROSS, K.S. BUILDING GANDHINAGAR BANGLAORE-560 009 ... RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. L.S. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2019 ON I.A. NO.4 IN REF.NO.1/2017 PASSED BY THE SECOND ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT AT BANGALORE ANNEXURE-H TO THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Shri S.N.Murthy, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Shri L.S.Manjunath, learned advocate for the respondent.
2. One Mahesh raised dispute before Conciliation Officer through respondent. Upon its failure, by order dated 26.12.2016, Government referred the dispute to II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, and it has been registered as Ref.No.1/2017.
3. Petitioner-Management filed counter statement disputing the employee-employer relationship and prayed before the Labour Court to decide the said aspect as a preliminary issue. Accordingly, preliminary issue was framed. In the meanwhile, workman filed I.A.No.4 seeking interim relief. The same was resisted by the Management. By the impugned order dated 04.02.2019, Labour Court partly allowed the application and directed the Management to pay Rs.8,000/- per month as interim relief.
4. Shri Murthy, placing reliance on Management of Rangaswamy & Co. Vs. D.V.Jagadish1, contended that when a preliminary issue is raised, before passing any further orders, Labour Court ought to have decided the preliminary issue. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable in law.
5. Shri Manjunath, learned advocate for respondent- workmen argued in support of the application.
6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
7. It is settled that whenever the question affecting the jurisdiction of Labour Court or Tribunal is raised, it is necessary for the Labour Court to decide the same. Therefore, Shri Murthy is right in his submission that Labour Court ought to have decided the preliminary issue before passing any further orders.
8. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case ends of justice would be met if the Labour Court is directed to decide the preliminary issue within a fixed timeframe and at the same 1 ILR 1990 KAR 1387 time, direct the Management to pay interim maintenance. Hence, the following;
ORDER (i) Labour Court shall decide additional issue raised on 25.10.2018 as preliminary issue, before passing any further orders, within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
(ii) Management shall pay interim relief of Rs.8,000/- per month with effect from 01.10.2019 till disposal of Ref.1/2017 before the Labour Court.
Petition disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV