IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.1438 OF 2019 (L-TER) BETWEEN:
M/S ELASTREX POLYMERS PVT. LTD., (NOW KNOWN AS PARAGON POLYMER PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,) NO.8/2, GANGADHARANAPALYA KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA BENGALURU - 562 123 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (NOW) (BY SHRI PRABHAKAR RAO K., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O SRI GOWDAPPA 2. SRI CHIKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O SRI KEMPAIAH BOTH REPRESENTED BY BANGALORE KARMIKARA SANGHA (REGD.) NO.8, ADARSHA NILAYA RAJAGOPALANAGARA MAIN ROAD PEENYA 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 058 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI A.J. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23/04/2019 IN W.P.NO.41377/2017 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU, ON IA NO.2 DATED 09.08.2017 ON THE FILE OF APPLICATION NO.10/2015, VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant which is the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge is the respondent in an application made by the respondents herein under Section 33 (C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the said Act of 1947’). In reference No.32/1998 and other connected references, an award was made on 14th December 2001 by the Labour Court, Bengaluru. It is on the basis of the said award passed by the Labour Court at Bengaluru, the said application under Section 33(C)(2) of the said Act of 1947 was filed on 30th November 2015.
2. In the said application, an interlocutory application was made by the appellant which was the respondent therein contending that the Principal Labour Court at Bengaluru had no jurisdiction in the light of the Government Order/notification dated 22nd January 2015. In exercise of powers under sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of the said Act of 1947, the said order was issued by the State Government for empowering the Principal District and Sessions Judges in the State where there are no Labour Courts to try and adjudicate the industrial disputes. The contention before the Principal Labour Court was that the factory of the appellant is situated outside Bengaluru District Urban and the jurisdiction of the Principal Labour Court at Bengaluru is confined to any matter or dispute under the said Act of 1947 relevant to the territorial jurisdiction of Bengaluru District Urban. The Principal Labour Court by the order dated 9th August 2017 rejected the said application of the appellant and imposed cost by observing that the head office of the appellant is situated at Peenya. The cost of Rs.10,000/- was imposed on the appellant. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge which has been rejected by the impugned order.
3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the place at which the factory of the appellant is situated is not the determinative factor. Inviting our attention to the Government order/notification dated 22nd January 2015, he submitted that as the Principal Labour Court at Bengaluru had no jurisdiction to deal with the cases arising outside the urban district, as per the said order, the jurisdiction will vest in the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. He submitted that the validity of the order dated 22nd January 2015 has been upheld by this Court and it is held that to all the cases filed after 22nd January 2015, the said order will apply.
4. He submitted that the Principal Labour Court lacks jurisdiction and therefore, the order which may be made by it will be nullity. He relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of KIRAN SINGH AND OTHERS vs. CHAMAN PASWAN AND OTHERS1 in support of his contention.
5. We have considered the submissions. We must note here that the respondents were forced to apply under Section 33(C)(2) of the said Act of 1947 as the amounts payable to them were allegedly not paid by the appellant as per the award dated 14th December 2001 passed by the Labour Court, Bengaluru which has attained finality. It is well settled that an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the said Act of 1947 is in the nature of execution proceedings. Moreover, in the 1 AIR 1954 SC 340 impugned order passed by the Labour Court in paragraph 13, it was observed that even otherwise, the Principal Labour Court possessed the territorial jurisdiction.
6. All that the learned Single Judge has observed in the impugned order is that there is no prejudice to the appellant, if the application under Section 33(C)(2) of the said Act of 1947 is heard and disposed of by the Labour Court.
7. The learned Single Judge has observed in paragraph 14 that the appellant relied upon certain decisions relating to the nullity of decree. In fact, in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kiran Singh (supra), the Apex Court has dealt with the same issue.
8. It is well settled that there is a difference between the issue of the lack of territorial jurisdiction and the issue of inherent lack of jurisdiction. If a decree is passed by the Court lacking inherent jurisdiction, it will be nullity. The objection regarding territorial jurisdiction stands on a different footing and the decree will not be necessarily nullity.
9. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge has rightly saddled the appellant with costs of Rs.5,000/-. The Labour Court has recorded reasons for saddling the appellant with the costs. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
The pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB