IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION No. 400 OF 2018 (L-Res) Between:
ICP (India) Pvt., Ltd., No.223-A, 4th Road, 3rd Phase, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Bengaluru -560 099.
Rep. by Manager, HR & IR, Sri. Sureshappa K.O. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Ram Mohan A. Advocate) And:
1. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Labour Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru -560 001.
3. Workmen of ICP (India) Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by: Melchior R.D.
Joint Secretary, Karnataka Workers Union, CITU Office, V.G. Gopal Building, No. 20/1, Lalbagh Fort Road, Bengaluru -560 004. ... Respondents (By Sri. V. Laxminarayan, AGA for R-1 and R-2; Sri. V.S. Naik, Advocate for R-3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records leading to the passing of the order dated 22.12.2017 by the Labour Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Annexure –A and issue a writ certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the Labour Secretary, Government of Karnataka at Annexure -A.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the court made the following:
ORDER Though the matter is coming up for preliminary hearing, with the consent of learned counsel for both sides, the matter is heard and disposed of finally.
2. The petitioner-company is before this Court being aggrieved of the order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the Labour Secretary, Government of Karnataka at Annexure-A. It is the contention of the petitioner that 9 workers were suspended by the petitioner-company on 29.05.2017 for misconduct and charge-sheet in that regard has been issued to the said workers. It is further contended by the petitioner that 29 other employees stopped working from 29.05.2017. The Union submitted the charter of demand and further the conciliation having failed, failure report was sent to the Government.
Thereafter, the Government has made a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication and the matter is still pending before the Labour Court. It is an admitted fact that the Government by exercising its powers under Section 10(1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the Industrial Dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication vide order dated 22.12.2017. It is further submitted that in view of the reference of the Industrial dispute for adjudication to the jurisdictional Labour Court, the Government in exercise of powers under Section 10(3) of the Act prohibited the partial lock out and simultaneously issued an order dated 22.12.2017.
3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the Labour Secretary, Government of Karnataka directing the petitioner to withdraw the partial lock out with immediate effect.
4. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-Union submits that the averments made by the petitioner as regards the workmen is far from truth. Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to Annexure –R3, which is a communication dated 08.09.2017, made by the workmen to the petitioner-company clearly stating that they are prepared to continue working and they will abide by the disciplinary orders and rules of the petitioner-company. However, it is made clear in the communication that the workmen have not gone on strike while the workmen have been denied work by the petitioner-company.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, would submit that barring the 9 workers against whom the petitioner –company has initiated action, the petitioner-company is prepared to take back the other 29 workers subject to an undertaking given by them that they will abide by disciplinary orders and directions issued by the petitioner-company, especially that the workmen should be prepared to work in any of the shifts assigned to them and they shall not destroy the company property.
6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent –union would submit that in the communicated dated 08.09.2017 workmen have made it very clear that they shall abide by the disciplinary orders and directions issued by the petitioner –company.
7. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that, the matter could be disposed off while allowing the Labour Court to proceed with the matter, which has been referred by the Government in Ref. No.2/2018 on the file of the Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru. The submission recorded during the proceedings of this matter shall not prejudice the proceedings before the Labour Court.
8. The impugned order dated 22.12.2017, to the extent that, the petitioner-company shall withdraw the partial lock out and allow the workmen to work, failing which, criminal action initiated against the petitioner- company, is required to the interfered with. As noted above, the question as to whether there was a partial lock out or not is a matter at large before the Labour Court and the same shall be decided in accordance with law. In view of the undertaking given by the workmen on 08.09.2017 at Annexure-R3 filed along with the statement of objections, it is once again reiterated and the workmen are directed to join the work in the petitioner-company and abide by the undertaking given by them in communication dated 08.09.2017. The petitioner-company is also directed to allow the 29 workmen to join work.
9. This petition is accordingly disposed off while partially modifying the impugned order at Annexure –A, while the question regarding partial lock out, shall be decided by the Labour Court and no criminal proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner-company. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-company shall take back all the 29 workmen but a grace period of one month is required to be given to the petitioner-company to engage the services of all the 29 workmen. Therefore, 29 workmen are directed to present themselves before the petitioner-company on 07.01.2019 and the petitioner –company shall inform the 29 workmen as to when they will be taken back into service in a staggered manner within a period of one month from 07.01.2019. This arrangement is made as the learned counsel for the petitioner voiced the grievance of the petitioner-company that all the 29 workmen cannot be accommodated at the same time. Therefore, the grace period of one month is granted to the petitioner-company.
The petition stands disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE BVK