IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION No.25852 of 2019 (L-RES) BETWEEN M/S. EXEDY CLUTCH INDIA PVT. LTD., PLOT No.5P, 9-18, 19P-32-38, NARASAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, APPASANDRA VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 133, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-FACTORY MANAGER SRI PRASHANTH DEVENDRA.
(BY SRI S.N. MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE - SRI S.N. MURTHY ASSOCIATES FOR SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE GENERAL SECRETARY, EXEDY CLUTCH INDIA EMPLOYEES’ UNION (R), CITU OFFICE, UDAYANAGAR, DOORAVANINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 016.
2. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER REGION-2 ... PETITIONER OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR KARMIKA BHAVANA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUBBA RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI SATHEESHA K.N., ADVOCATE FOR R1.
SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 30.03.2019 AT ANNEXURE-'X' PASSED BY THE R-2 AND SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.05.2019 AT ANNEXURE-'Z' PASSED BY THE R-2 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri S.N. Murthy along with learned Counsel Sri Somashekar, appearing for the petitioner and Sri Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent.
Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the second respondent.
2. The petitioner is a manufacturing concern carrying on the manufacture of motor vehicle parts and the first respondent is a recognized employees’ union. That by a Charter of Wage Settlement produced at Annexure-C, the petitioner had agreed to pay certain sums subject to the condition that the respondent-workman would maintain 100% production. That the workman failed to maintain the productivity level and thereby failed to achieve the target set by the petitioner-employer. Therefore, the petitioner proceeded to deduct certain sums from the wages to be paid to the workmen. Aggrieved, the workmen approached the second respondent-authority under the provisions of Section 33(C)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘Act’). The second respondent on receipt of the application, issued notice and despite service of notice, the petitioner neither appeared in the matter nor appointed any representative to appear on its behalf before the second respondent. Taking note of the absence of the petitioner, the second respondent proceeded to pass the order awarding a sum of Rs.37,83,866/-. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Though the petition is listed for preliminary hearing, in view of the nature of lis involved and with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is taken up for final disposal.
4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings have been carried on behind the back of the petitioner and an ex parte order has been passed without affording sufficient opportunity to it. It is further submitted that the petitioner had made an application under Section 11(1) of the Act praying the second respondent to recall the ex parte order dated 30.03.2019 and the second respondent by an endorsement dated 22.05.2019 has rejected the same.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner invite the attention of this Court to the grounds set out in the affidavit accompanying the application at paragraphs 2 to 6 to contend that despite the petitioner demonstrating sufficient cause, the second respondent failed to consider the same and recall the ex parte award. He would submit that the petitioner had specifically contented that on the first occasion, notice was received belatedly and hence, the petitioner was prevented from appearing before the authority and on the next date of hearing, there was a note stating that the further date of hearing would be intimated by way of notice and in the meanwhile, there was some unrest amongst the contract labourers and hence, the representatives of the management were pre- occupied with the same. That the authority, without appreciating any of these factors, has proceeded to reject the application filed under Section 11(1) of the Act praying for recalling the order.
6. Per contra, Sri Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent would contend that the excuse set out by the management is a lame duck excuse. That there are several employees at the managerial level and they were all well aware of the pending proceedings and despite the same, they have deliberately ignored the same.
7. Be that as it may, the issue involves financial implications both to the management and the employees. That being the factual matrix, this Court is of the opinion that the second respondent could have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner and then proceeded to dispose of the dispute in a time bound manner. The reasons set out in the application are not rebutted either by the respondent nor were considered by the second respondent while rejecting the application. On the contrary, the second respondent has proceeded on the footing that despite two notices being sent by RPAD, the petitioner has failed to respond and appear before it.
8. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the second respondent ought to have gone into the reasons stated in the application and ought to have passed the order adjudging the correctness of the reasons set out in the application. The second respondent having failed to do so, this Court is of the opinion that the second respondent-authority has not answered the grounds canvassed before it in a proper perspective. Hence, the following order:
The writ petition is allowed. The endorsement dated 22.05.2019 is quashed. The application preferred under Section 11(1) of the Act is allowed. Consequently, the award dated 30.03.2019 is quashed subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh) only before the authority within a period of three weeks and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent-authority for consideration and disposal in accordance with law within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE mv