IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JANUARY, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. WRIT APPEAL NO. 3498 OF 2016 (L-RES) BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT OF SAMI LABS LTD., NO.19/1 & 19/2, I MAIN, II PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE-560058 REPRESENTED BY SRI.S.C.GANGADHARA MURTHY (MAJOR), GENERAL MANAGER-(HR) ... APPELLANT (BY SRI K.KASTURI, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SRI K.MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND THE ORGANISING SECRETARY BANGALORE NORTH INDUSTRIAL WORKERS UNION(CITU) CITU OFFICE, I MAIN, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE-560022 (BY SRI T.S.ANANTHARAM, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENT THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 5.7.2016 PASSED IN W.P.392/2016.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, BUDIHAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This writ appeal is filed challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated July 05, 2016, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.392 of 2016.
2. We have heard the arguments of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.K.Kasturi and also the learned advocate appearing for the respondent representing the workers’ union.
3. Learned senior counsel made the submission that looking to the nature of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal and the Hon’ble Single Judge, virtually it amounts to disposal of the main industrial dispute itself. It is also his contention that though some disputed factual aspects were involved in the case, even then the Industrial Tribunal has not recorded the oral evidence of the parties before coming to such conclusion. Hence, it is his contention that the matter has to be remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction to consider the entire materials and to dispose of the case after recording the evidence on both the sides.
4. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent- workers’ union made the submission that the Tribunal has taken into consideration all the material aspects involved in the case and only after that, it has come to the conclusion to allow the contention raised by the workers’ union. He also made the submission that the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal is in the nature of interim relief and it cannot be said that it amounts to disposal of the main case itself. Hence, it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal and by the Hon’ble Single Judge, and no interference by this court is necessary.
5. We have perused the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and also the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal and the Hon’ble Single Judge.
6. Looking to the aspects involved in the case, it is clear that some material factual disputes exist between the management and the workers’ union. Before this court the appellant has produced some documents along with an application.
7. Therefore, looking to the materials placed on record, we are of the opinion that without recording the evidence on both sides, factual disputes cannot be decided by the Tribunal. It requires recording of evidence on both sides referring to all the material facts placed before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the matter has to be remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction to give an opportunity to both the sides to produce documents and to record the oral evidence on both sides, and then to dispose of the matter.
8. As the learned advocate for the respondent made the submission that the matter is pending since three years, we are also of the opinion that the Tribunal has to dispose of the matter within a period of six months from today.
9. Therefore, the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge as well as that of the Industrial Tribunal are hereby set aside.
10. The writ appeal stands allowed.
11. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE vgh*