IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.49830 OF 2019 (L-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S INTUIT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PVT. LTD, CAMPUS: 4A PRL. TECH PARK ECO SPACE, 7TH FLOOR BELLANDUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 103 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HOLDER - MR.SUNDAR V …PETITIONER (BY SHRI. S. AJESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI VIJAYA GANAPATHI S/O SRI RANGAPATHI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.46 ALKAPOOR TOWNSHIP SECTOR II/B, POPPALAGUDA HYDERABAD TELANGANA STATE-500 075 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. SUBHA RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. MAITHREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGED ORDER DATED 01.10.2019 AT ANNX-A IN I.D.NO.21 OF 2013 ISSUED BY THE II ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER AT ANNX-E.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Though this matter is listed for orders, with consent of learned advocates for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Ms.Mythreyi Krishnan, learned advocate accepts notice for the respondent.
3. Rule.
4. Heard Shri Ajesh Kumar.S., learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Shri K.Subbarao, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent.
5. Respondent raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court. The Labour Court by its award dated 16.09.2016 rejected the claim. The workman challenged the same in W.P.No.62442/2016 on the ground that there was a settlement between the parties in O.S.No.5885/2012 filed by the workman where under Management had paid a sum of Rs.4,24,355/- to the workman. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by recording thus:
“4. In the meanwhile, I.A. was filed to dismiss the claim petition on 19.06.2013 and it was rejected on 30.10.2013. Labour Court without framing issue, “Whether settlement with regard to termination and payment of due amount to the petitioner, can proceed to pass award as if termination read with the settlement has taken place”? In the absence of framing issues, findings given by the Labour Court is not fair and correct. Accordingly, the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.21/2013 dated 16.09.2016 is hereby set-aside and I.D.No.21/13 be heard afresh from the stage of arguments after giving due opportunity to both the parties. Parties are hereby directed to appear before the Labour Court on 09.09.2019. Labour Court is hereby directed to complete the proceedings within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order.”
5. Thereafter, the Management filed an application before the Labour Court with a prayer to frame an issue with regard to settlement. By the impugned order, the Labour Court has dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition.
6. Though various contentions were urged on behalf of both petitioner and respondent, Shri Ajesh Kumar, in substance submitted that the Labour Court has prejudged the issue with regard to settlement while considering Management’s application to frame additional issue. He contended that if the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.62442/2016 is to be complied by the Management, its contention with regard to settlement would be rendered otiose in view of findings recorded by the Labour Court in paragraph No.9 of the impugned order.
7. Shri Subbarao, learned Senior Advocate, in his usual fairness submitted that respondent shall have no objection for setting aside the findings recorded in paragraph No.9 of the impugned order so far as settlement is concerned and the Labour Court may consider the arguments to be addressed on behalf of both workman and management afresh wholly uninfluenced by finding in paragraph No.9 of the impugned order. His submission is placed on record.
8. In the circumstances, the following order:
i) Petition is allowed;
ii) The findings recorded in paragraph No.9 of impugned order with regard to the aspect of settlement between workman and management are set aside;
iii) The Labour Court shall consider the final arguments by both workman and Management wholly uninfluenced by contents of paragraph No.9 of the impugned order;
iv) The Labour Court shall decide the issue as expeditiously as possible and in any event, not later than 30.11.2019.
No costs.
Yn.
Sd/- JUDGE