IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.18078 OF 2019 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NOS.7755-7763 OF 2018 (L-RES) IN WP.NO.18078/2019:
BETWEEN:
SRI PADMANABHA RAO K.N S/O. K.H.NAMA RAO AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS TRAINEE PRINTING GO GO EXPORTS (PVT) LIMITED BISAVANAHALLI BEHIND ANANDAVANA ARDESHAHALLI POST DODDABALLAPURA R/AT KOKOLU HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU – 560 089 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI KUTTAPPA B.D., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MANAGEMENT OF GO GO EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED BISAVANAHALLI BEHIND ANANDAVANA ARADESHALLI POST DODDABALLAPURA BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR 2. YATHI DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. BISAVANAHALLI BEHIND ANANDAVANA ARADESHALLI POST DODDABALLAPURA BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE 3. SRI ESHWAR CHAND BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O. UGAMRAJ BHANDARI R/AT NO.158, 159 RT STREET CROSS ROAD HURIOPET BANGALORE – 560 002 4. SRI MUKESH KUMAR BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O BHAWARLAL BHANDARI R/AT NO.158, 159 RT STREET CROSS ROAD HURIOPET BANGALORE – 560 002 5. SRI DEEPAK KUMAR BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O BHAWARLAL BHANDARI R/AT NO.158, 159 RT STREET CROSS ROAD HURIOPET BANGALORE – 560 002 6. SRI CHETAN PRAKASH BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O. JAWAHARLAL BHANDARI R/AT NO.158, 159 RT STREET CROSS ROAD HURIOPET BANGALORE – 560 002 7. SRI ARUN PRAKASH BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS S/O JAWAHARLAL BHANDARI R/AT NO.158, 159 RT STREET CROSS ROAD HURIOPET BANGALORE – 560 002 8. SMT. CHOTI BAI BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS W/O. UGAMRAJ BHANDARI REPRESENTED BY HER GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI MUKESH KUMAR BHANDARI R/AT NO.158, 159 RT STREET CROSS ROAD HURIOPET BANGALORE – 560 002 9. SMT. PUSHPA BAI BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O. BHAWARLAL BHANDARI REPRESENTED BY HER GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI MUKESH KUMAR BHANDARI R/AT NO.158, 159 RT STREET CROSS ROAD HURIOPET BANGALORE – 560 002 10. SMT. KANCHAN BAI BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O. JAWAHARLAL BHANDARI REPRESENTED BY HER GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI MUKESH KUMAR BHANDARI R/AT NO.158, 159 RT STREET CROSS ROAD HURIOPET BANGALORE – 560 002 11. SMT. SUNITHA BAI BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O. ESWARCHAND BHANDARI REPRESENTED BY HER GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI MUKESH KUMAR BHANDARI R/AT NO.158, 159 RT STREET CROSS ROAD HURIOPET BANGALORE – 560 002 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.R. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI SYED KASHIF ALI FOR SRI S.R.KANALACHARAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R11.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.03.2019 (ANNEXURE-F) PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN REFERENCE NO.13/2013 AND ETC.
IN WP.NOS.7755-7763/2018: BETWEEN:
1. ESHWAR CHAND BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O. SRI UGAMRAJ BHANDARI 2. MUKESH KUMAR BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O SRI BHAWARLAL BHANDARI 3. DEEPAK KUMAR BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O SRI BHAWARLAL BHANDARI 4. CHETAN PRAKASH BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O. SRI JAWAHARLAL BHANDARI 5. ARUN PRAKASH BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O SRI JAWAHARLAL BHANDARI 6. SMT. CHOTI BAI BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS W/O. SRI UGAMRAJ BHANDARI 7. SMT. PUSHPA BAI BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS W/O. SRI BHAWARLAL BHANDARI 8. SMT. KANCHAN BAI BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O. SRI JAWAHARLAL BHANDARI 9. SMT. SUNITHA BAI BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O. ESWARCHAND BHANDARI ALL ARE RESIDING AT R/AT NO.158, 159 RT STREET CROSS ROAD HURIOPET ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI SYED KASHIF FOR SRI S.R. KAMALACHARAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. WORKMEN OF M/S. GO GO EXPORTS (PVT.) LTD., BISAVALLI VILLAGE BEHIND ANANDAVANA ARADESHALLI POST DODDABALLAPURA BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR 1(A) SRI. K.N. HANUMANTHA REDDY S/O. K. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS CASTING ASSISTANT, M/S. GO GO EXPORTS (P) LTD.
RESIDING AT LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA NILAYA IND WARD, GANGADHARAPURA DODDABALLAPURA – 561 203 1(B) SRI. C.N. VENKATESH S/O. C. V. NARAYANAPPA MAJOR RESIDING AT CHIKKARAYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE MELEKOTE POST – 561 205 DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 1(C) MRS. PRATHIBA SHASTRY W/O. RATAN PRAKASH RESIDING AT NO.1091, 15TH ‘B’ CROSS YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU – 560 064 1(D) SRI N.ANJINA GOWDA S/O. NARAYANAPPA AVALAHALLI S.N.HALLI POST YELAHANKA BENGALURU – 560 064 1(E) SRI T.G.SHURESHA S/O T.GANGAPPA MAJOR DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110 1(F) SRI M.ASHWATHAPPA S/O. MARIYAPPA MAJOR RESIDING AT KOLUR VILLAGE ANTHANAHALLI POST – 561 203 DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 1(G) SRI CHIKKE GOWDA S/O. SRI. MUNIRAJAIAH ARALUMALLIGE U & P 561 203 DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 1(H) SRI K.V. MARUTHI S/O VASANTHAPPA KODIHALLI KONAGATTA POST – 560064 DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 1(I) SRI G.NARAYAN MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.56, 3RD B MAIN ROAD 4TH B CROSS, SOMESHWARA NAGAR G.K.V.K. POST BENGALURU – 560 065 1(J) SRI C.S. PADMANABHAN S/O LAT EG.R. SHESHADRI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO.203 MOTHER BLOSSOM APARTMENT HOSAHATTI LAYOUT KODIGEHALLI BENGALURU – 560 092 1(K) SRI D. PRAKASH MURTHY S/O. DODDAPUTTANNA MAJOR RESIDING AT GANGARAJAPURA GANTIGANAHALLI POST – 561 205 DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 1(L) SRI K. NARENDRA S/O. D.N. KEMPANNA MAJOR RESIDING AT GANGARAJAPURA GONTIGANAHALLI POST – 561 205 DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 1(M) MRS. JANAKY DAYANAND W/O. SRI. DAYANAND RESIDING AT NO.18 HONNAMMA VILLAGE 1ST MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS SANTHOSH NAGAR, ATTUR LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560064 2. MANAGEMENT OF M/S. GO GO EXPORTS (PVT.) LIMITED BISAVANAHALLI BEHIND ANANDAVANA ARADESHALLI POST DODDABALLAPURA BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.D.KUTTAPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) TO R1(M); SRI K.R.ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.01.2017 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BENGALURU IN AID NO.22/2013(ANNEXURE –K) AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The writ petition No.18078/2019 by the workman lays a challenge to the order dated 11.03.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure – F whereby the Labour Court, Bengaluru in petitioner’s Reference No.13/2013, has rejected his application for impleadment of respondent Nos.2 to 11.
2. In connected WP.Nos.7755-7763/2018, the petitioners are calling in question the order dated 31.01.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure – K whereby the learned Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in Workman’s AID No.22/2013 having allowed his impleading application has permitted the impleadment of petitioners as respondents. Since common questions of law and facts arise in these matters, they are taken up together with consent of the Bar for final hearing and disposal.
3. The short question that arises for consideration in this case is:
whether the petitioners in WP.Nos.7755-7763/2018 on account of their buying a part of the property vide subject sale deed from the 2nd respondent M/s. Go Go Exports Pvt. Ltd., become the employer of the litigant workman?
The answer to this question needs to be in the negative for the following reasons:
(a) the petitioners in W.P.Nos.7755-7763/2018 admittedly have bought a part of the property belonging to M/s. Go Go Exports Pvt. Ltd as contradistinguished from the very industrial concern with lock stock and barrel; the plant and the machinery continued to be with the transferor;
(b) arguably, the petitioners would have become the proper parties if not necessary parties to the adjudication of the subject industrial dispute had there been the transfer of the ownership or management of the subject undertaking as is contemplated under section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; if the legislature intended otherwise, it would have made a provision to the effect that even a buyer of a portion of the property belonging to the industrial concern would become a part of the management; such a provision is conspicuously absent in the Act;
(c) the subject sale transaction is not even hit by the doctrine of lis pendens enacted under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 inasmuch as the sale deed in question is apparently & admittedly much anterior to the raising of the industrial dispute; it is not the case of the workman that M/s. Go Go Exports Pvt. Ltd has alienated the subject property in favour of these petitioners with intent to delay or defraud him;
In the above circumstances, the workman’s W.P.No.18078/2019 is dismissed; the W.P.Nos.7755-7763/2018 having been allowed, the impugned order dated 31.01.2017 at Annexure – K not being sustainable, is quashed so far as the petitioners therein are concerned.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY