IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.18809/2018 (L-RES) BETWEEN SHRI. SURESH S/O L. DEVAIAH, AGE 49 YEARS, OCC:EMPLOYED, R/O D.NO.230, 4TH CROSS GOKULA, 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, H M T LAYOUT, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560 545.
(BY SRI. V. R. DATAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND SHRAM BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. MANAGEMENT OF DIE-CASTING AND PLASTIC MACHINERY DIVISION, ... PETITIONER HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LTD., HMT-1 & 2 POST, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560013 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
(BY SMT. M S PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. ADITYA SINGH, ASG FOR SRI. C SHASHIKANTH, ASG FOR R2;
... RESPONDENTS SRI. RANGAPPA Y HADAYALI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IT'S ORDER ON ISSUE NO.1 ON MAINTAINABILITY DTD:17.1.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE PETITION BY ISSUING WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND/OR 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Though the matter is listed for “Hearing- Interlocutory Application”, with the consent of the learned counsel on both sides, the mater is heard and disposed of finally.
2. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the order on additional Issue No.1, on the question of maintainability passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I.D.No.158/2005.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an issue regarding maintainability was raised before the Tribunal when the matter was ready for arguments on the main dispute. However, the impugned order has been passed holding that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the 1st party arising out of reference made by the State Government, while the appropriate Government is the Central Government as per Section 2(a) (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I. D. Act). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the issue was raised at the fag end, both the learned counsels have not brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the Ministry of Labour, Government of India has issued a notification dated 03.07.1998, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 39 of the I.D. Act and the Central Government has directed that all the powers exercisable by it under the Act and the rules made thereunder shall in relation to all the Central Government Public Sector Undertakings and their Subsidiary Corporations, Autonomous Bodies, specified in the schedule annexed to the notification shall be exercisable by the respective State Governments also, subject to the condition that the Central Government shall exercise all the powers under the said Act and the rules made thereunder as and when it is considered necessary to do so.
4. At serial No.37, in the schedule, the name of the 3rd respondent-Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., Bangalore (for short ‘HMT’) finds a place. However, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that subsequently, the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India has issued one more notification dated 05.05.2008 whereby the earlier notification dated 03.07.1998 is rescinded, but it has been specifically stated that the rescission of the notification dated 03.07.1998 is with an exception with regard to things done or omitted to be done before such rescission. Therefore, it is submitted that by virtue of the earlier order dated 03.07.1998, the reference was made by the State Government and it is only after the reference was made by the State Government in the year 2005, the subsequent notification is issued on 05.05.2008 clearly exempting all the actions that were undertaken under earlier notification. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order requires to be set-aside and the matter has to be remanded back to the Tribunal for continuation of the proceedings from the stage where it was dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the 3rd respondent is not HMT Ltd., Bangalore. The name of the 3rd respondent is not found in the notification issued by the Central Government. To a question posed by this Court as to whether the 3rd respondent is a subsidiary of HMT or not, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has not given a clear answer. However, it is clear from the record that the 3rd respondent is a subsidiary of HMT, Ltd., Bangalore. The notification applies to all the public sector undertakings and other subsidiaries.
6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 17.01.2018, at Annexure-‘E’ is hereby quashed and set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, restoring the I.D.No.158/2005 and the same shall be proceeded from the stage at which the impugned order was passed.
7. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein was permitted to continued to serve with the 3rd respondent during the pendency of the industrial disputes and therefore seeks a direction to the effect that the petitioner may be continued in the services of the 3rd respondent. This Court is of the opinion that such an order cannot be passed at this stage. However, an application may be made by the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal, no sooner the matter is taken up by the industrial Tribunal.
To enable the dispute to be resolved at the earliest, the parties are herein directed to appear before the Industrial Tribunal on 14.03.2019 at 11.00 a.m, without further notice. The Tribunal is also requested to dispose of the dispute as expeditiously as possible.
Since the main petition is disposed of, the I.A. No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.
A copy of this order shall be sent to the Industrial Tribunal.
SD/- JUDGE DL