IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G. NARENDAR W. P. No.22810/2017 (L-RES) BETWEEN:
THE CENTRAL ARECANUT AND COCOA MARKETING AND PROCESSING CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED, (CAMPCO) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT VARANASI TOWERS, MISSION STREET MANGALURU–575001 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. SURESH BHANDARI .M. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN-SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ARUNA SHYAM .M-ADV) AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR NEW DELHI–110001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY LABOUR DEPARTMENT 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU–560001.
3. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER HASSAN DIVISION HASSAN–572301.
4. THE CENTRAL ARECANUT AND COCOA MARKETING AND PROCESSING CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED, (CAMPCO) EMPLOYEES UNION (BMS) VARANASI TOWERS, MISSION STREET MANGALURU–575001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT/SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA - AGA FOR R-2 & R-3; R4 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED:30.05.2017) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) RULES, 1961 AND THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946 AND AMENDMENT RULES, 2009 ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PETITIONER-SOCIETY AND ETC.
THIS WP COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the conciliation proceedings dated 12.5.2017.
2. It is seen that the dispute referred to for conciliation is with regard to the enhancement of the retirement age pursuant to the Government Notification dated 27.3.2017 whereby the age of superannuation has been increased from 58 to 60 years.
3. Learned Senior counsel would submit that the conciliator could not have passed an order in the nature of an interim direction restraining the petitioner from superannuating the employees who have completed 58 years of age as on 31.5.2017.
4. A perusal of Annexure-A, the record of proceedings impugned herein, would demonstrate that the conciliator has merely opined or rather advised the petitioner not to superannuate any employee before he attains the age of 60.
5. The proceedings impugned are neither in the nature of a direction nor an order. Hence in the considered opinion of the Court, the present writ petition is premature.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. All contentions are left open.
Sd/- JUDGE rs