Karnataka High Court
Sri Mallikarjuna vs M/S Adc India Communications Ltd on 29 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29848
WP No. 48329 of 2018
C/W WP No. 48330 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.48329 OF 2018 (L-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.48330 OF 2018 (L-RES)
IN W.P. NO.48329 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MALLIKARJUNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SANJEEVAPPA,
2. SRI LOKESHAPPA B.N.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O. NINGAPPA,
3. SRI CHANDRAPPA J.N.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O. NANDI POOJARI,
Digitally signed
by SHYAMALA 4. SRI R. SHESAGIRI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF S/O. RANGAPPA,
KARNATAKA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT C/O. NO.5/2,
MYLARALINGESHWARA NILAYA,
CHANNAPANAPALYA,
NEAR SAPTAGIRI LAYOUT,
TUMAKURU - 572 101. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. ADC INDIA COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,
NO.10C, 2ND PHASE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29848
WP No. 48329 of 2018
C/W WP No. 48330 of 2018
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BENGALURU-560 058
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU DIVISION,
BENGALURU-560 029.
4. SRI SATISHA .R
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O. LATE REVANNA,
R/AT C/O. NO.5/2,
MYLARALINGESHWARA NILAYA,
CHANNAPPANAPALYA,
NEAR SAPTAGIRI LAYOUT,
TUMAKURU-572 101. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ROOPASRI S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 (VC);
SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R-2 & R-3;
NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 30/01/2019)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.08.2018 PASSED BY THE I
ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN REF.NO.19/2016
VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
IN W.P. NO.48330 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA TRADE UNION CENTRE,
NO.43, 2ND FLOOR, MIG-2ND STAGE,
KHB COLONY, BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29848
WP No. 48329 of 2018
C/W WP No. 48330 of 2018
BENGALURU-560 079.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
SRI G.R. SHIVASHANKAR.
2. SMT. BHAGYA B.R.
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
W/O. MAHESH K.R.
R/AT NO.4, 16TH CROSS,
BEHIND BBMP OFFICE,
NEAR KRISHNAPPA HOSTEL,
BAGALGUNTE,
BENGALURU-560 073.
3. SMT. NAGALAKSHMI Y.N.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
W/O. K.N. GOPALAKRISHNAN,
R/AT 'GANESH NILAYAM',
NO.58, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
PATEL NARAYANA SWAMAPPA LAYOUT,
CHUNCHAGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
KONANKUNTE POST, BENGALURU-560 062.
4. SMT. VIMALA BAI .V
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
W/O. K. SHANTH PRAKASH RAO,
R/AT NO.1433, 9TH CROSS,
9TH MAIN ROAD, MAHESHWARAMMA CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560 057.
5. SMT. KAMALAMMA .H
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
W/O. PANDURANGA .M
R/AT NO.24,
SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA NILAYA,
RAMAIAH GYM BEHIND,
SINGAPURA, BENGALURU-560 097.
6. SMT. V. GEETHA BALI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
W/O. K. VENKATA RAO,
R/AT NO.311/2, 2ND MAIN,
BAHUBALINAGAR, JALAHALLI VILLAGE,
BENGALURU-560 013.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:29848
WP No. 48329 of 2018
C/W WP No. 48330 of 2018
7. SMT. NEELAMMA S.B.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
W/O. RAJANNA .T
R/AT NO.518, 7TH A MAIN ROAD,
RAJESHWARINAGARA,
LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560 058.
8. SMT. PUSHPALATHA G.R.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
W/O. CHINNAMARAIAH,
R/AT NO.U-36, PIPELINE,
BASAPPA GARDEN, MALLESWARAM,
BENGALURU-560 003.
9. SMT. V. SUBBALAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
W/O. V. RAMESH,
R/AT NO.927, 3RD MAIN,
3RD CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 040.
10. SMT. UMAMESHWARI K.E.
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
W/O. E. REVANNA SIDDAPPA,
R/AT NO.94, 11TH MAIN, PIPELINE ROAD,
SRINIVASANAGAR, SUNKADAKATTE,
BENGALURU-560 091.
11. SMT. C.S. UMADEVI
AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS,
W/O. CHANDRAPPA K.R.
R/AT NO.399, 9TH CROSS,
8TH MAIN, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR,
T. DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 057.
12. SMT. BHAGYA .T
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
W/O. LATE JAYARAM,
R/AT THIMMAIAH BUILDING,
D.NO.248/1, CHOKKASANDRA MAIN ROAD,
DASARAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU-560 057.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:29848
WP No. 48329 of 2018
C/W WP No. 48330 of 2018
13. SMT. H. LAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
W/O. R. MANJUNATHA,
R/AT NO.45/58, 12TH CROSS,
1ST MAIN ROAD, KODANDARAMPURAM,
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.
14. SMT. JAYANTHI .R
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
W/O. SRINIVASAN .K
R/AT NO.115, ANUSUYA CHANDRAPPA LAYOUT,
BHARATNAGAR, M.S. PALYA ROAD,
VIDYARANAYAPURA POST,
BENGALURU-560 097.
15. SMT. SEETHALAKSHMI .P
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
W/O. PARTHASARATHI .A
R/AT NO.117, 4TH CROSS,
11TH MAIN, RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT,
K.G. HALLI, BENGALURU-560 015.
16. SMT. KUMUDA T.S.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
W/O. LATE P.T. AIYANA,
R/AT NO.494, 2ND BLOCK,
9TH MAIN, HMT LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 097.
17. SMT. JAYALALITHA .M
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
W/O. SHAMBU H.S.
R/AT NO.13/N, GR LAYOUT,
BRAMARAMBA NILAYA,
1ST MAIN, KEREGUDDAHALLI,
BEHIND GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
CHIKKABANAVARA,
BENGALURU-560 090.
18. SMT. MANJULA .S
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
W/O. RAMDAS .M
R/AT NO.4, AMBABHAVANI NAGARA,
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:29848
WP No. 48329 of 2018
C/W WP No. 48330 of 2018
2ND MAIN ROAD, VIDYANAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 097.
19. SMT. GEETHA .J
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
W/O. K. CHANDRASHEKAR,
R/AT NO.213, 28TH CROSS,
2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 010.
20. SMT. B. JYOTHI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
W/O. LATE SHASHIDHARAN .S
R/AT ASHIRWAD, NO.21,
III CROSS, II PHASE, GOKULA III STAGE,
YESHAWANTHAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 022.
21. SMT. MANGALAGOWRI .S
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
D/O. SUBRAYAPPA,
R/AT NO.17, SHIVAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 058.
22. SRI CHANNAKESHAVA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O. GUNDU SHETTY,
R/AT SITE NO.16, 2ND CROSS,
MARUTHI LAYOUT, CHOKKASANDRA,
BENGALURU-560 058.
23. SMT. LAKSHMI M.G.S.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
W/O. K.B. SHASHIDHAR,
R/AT NO.5, 4TH CROSS,
HALE GANGAPPA LAYOUT,
CHIKKABIDRAKALLU, NAGASANDRA POST,
BENGALURU-560 073.
24. SRI K.B. SHASHIDHAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O. LATE K.L. BHEEMA RAO,
R/AT NO.5, 4TH CROSS,
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:29848
WP No. 48329 of 2018
C/W WP No. 48330 of 2018
HALE GANGAPPA LAYOUT,
CHIKKABIDRAKALLU,
NAGASANDRA POST,
BENGALURU-560 073.
25. SMT. LALITHA B.B.
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
W/O. SHANKARE GOWDA P.D.
R/AT 2ND MAIN ROAD,
NANJAMBA AGRAHARA,
CHAMARAJAPET,
BENGALURU-560 018.
26. SMT. GANGAMMA .G
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
W/O. LATE SURANARAYAN RAO,
R/AT NO.8/3, 1ST MAIN,
NANJAMBA AGRAHARA,
CHAMARAJAPETE,
BENGALURU-560 018.
27. SRI ARAVIND KULKARNI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O. LATE HANUMANTHRAO,
R/AT NO.3016, 2ND FLOOR,
JANAPRIYA APARTMENT,
KADABAGERE CROSS,
BENGALURU-562123.
28. SMT. SUDHA .R
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
W/O. VENKATESH MURTHY .G
R/AT NO.108, BEHIND KABIR MUTT,
SUNKENAHALLI, HANUMANTHNAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 019.
29. SRI P. SURIBABU
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O. PEDDAHONNAPPA,
R/AT MUNIKONDAPPA LAYOUT,
I CROSS, BAGALAGUNTE,
BENGALURU-560 073. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT M., ADVOCATE)
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:29848
WP No. 48329 of 2018
C/W WP No. 48330 of 2018
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU DIVISION,
BENGALURU-560029.
3. M/S. ADC INDIA COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,
NO.10C, 2ND PHASE,
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BENGALURU-560 058
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4. SMT. RAMADEVI B.,
D/O. LATE BETTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO.31, 2ND MAIN,
NANJAMBA AGRAHARA,
5TH MAIN, CHAMARAJAPETE,
BENGALURU-560 018. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ROOPASRI S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 (VC);
SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R-2 & R-3;
SRI K.SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.08.2018 PASSED ON I.A. NO.3 BY
THE I ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN
REF.NO.13/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN
AS UNDER:
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:29848
WP No. 48329 of 2018
C/W WP No. 48330 of 2018
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
Both the writ petitions are taken up together since common questions are involved in these petitions.
2. W.P.No.48329/2018 is preferred by the workmen assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 28/08/2018 on I.A.No.4 in Reference No.19/2016 and W.P.No.48330/2018 is preferred by the workmen through its union, assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 29/08/2018 passed on I.A. No.3 in Ref.No.13/2014, the impugned orders in both the petitions are passed by the I Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru ("the Labour Court" for short) vide Annexure-G, whereby, the applications filed by the respondent-company were allowed and directed the workmen to deposit the voluntary retirement scheme benefit amount received by them from the company within 30 days.
3. The parties herein are referred to as the 'workmen' and 'company' for the sake of convenience.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29848 WP No. 48329 of 2018 C/W WP No. 48330 of 2018
4. The petitioners are workmen of the respondent
- company, by way of Voluntary Retirement Scheme ("VRS"), which was introduced by the respondent - company in June 2012, the petitioners-workmen accepted the VRS and received amount which has been transferred to their respective bank accounts.
5. The petitioners raised a dispute in the year 2016 before the Government, the Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The respondent-company filed counter to the claim statement.
6. Respondent - company filed applications I.A.Nos.3 and 4 in the respective reference for a direction to the workmen to deposit the amount received by them under the VRS. The petitioners filed objections to the said applications, the Labour Court, vide impugned order, allowed the applications and directed the workmen to deposit the amount within 30 days thereon. Assailing the same, the workmen are before this Court.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29848 WP No. 48329 of 2018 C/W WP No. 48330 of 2018
7. Heard Sri Vijaya Krishna Bhat M., learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Roopasri S., learned counsel for Sri Somashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 (VC); Smt. Rashmi Rao, HCGP for respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Sri K.Srinivasa, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the material on record.
8. Drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Labour Court was not justified in allowing the applications for direction and directing refund of the amount received by the workmen. Learned counsel submits that the demand made by respondent No.1- company is after six long years from the date of disbursement of the benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the acceptance of VRS by the petitioners-workmen is under pressure and coercion, and they were forced to receive the payment under VRS, which aspect has been totally overlooked by the Labour Court.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29848 WP No. 48329 of 2018 C/W WP No. 48330 of 2018
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - company justifies the order passed by the Labour Court stating that the direction of refund of the amount received under the VRS is proper, fair and in consonance with the principles of justice and equity and good conscience. Learned counsel submits that the workmen could not retain the benefit which they never wanted or were thrust upon them against their will and thus, the Labour Court was justified in issuing direction to return the amount received under the Scheme, which warrants no interference. Learned counsel in support of her contentions placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Man Singh vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited1 and submits that inspite of specific direction and time granted by the Labour Court to deposit/refund the entire amount received, the petitioners have neither deposited nor tendered the amount as ordered by the Labour Court and thus, submits that the petitioners have 1 2011 LLR 1009
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29848 WP No. 48329 of 2018 C/W WP No. 48330 of 2018 no audience to go further with the petitions and sought to dismiss the petitions.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is, "Whether the petitioners-workmen are entitled to continue with the reference without depositing the amount received under the VRS?"
11. The challenge to the VRS is on the ground of coercion, the employees / workmen have seized to be the employees of the company after accepting the full benefits under the scheme of voluntary retirement, have moved the Labour Court seeking to challenge the action of the respondent No.1-company contending that the petitioners' signatures were obtained under coercion and compulsion. The workmen cannot approbate and reprobate, the workmen if intending to challenge the VRS signed by them on account of duress and coercion, the workmen ought to have deposited the benefits received there under. In all fairness, they should have first deposited the amount
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29848 WP No. 48329 of 2018 C/W WP No. 48330 of 2018 which they received, and thereafter contend that they were forced to sign the VR. The Labour Court has given direction to the petitioners-workmen to deposit the amount within the stipulated time. The Apex Court under identical circumstances, in Ramesh Chandra Sankla & others vs. Vikram Cement & others2, has held at para Nos.83, 84, 87 and 100 as under:
"83. The learned counsel for the workmen contended that the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court directing refund of amount received by the workmen to the Company was illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction. It was submitted that once the Court held that intra-court appeals instituted by the Company were not maintainable, it ought to have dismissed them without passing any order as to refund.
84. The Division Bench, in para 7, stated:
"Learned counsel has further submitted that the respondent employee is estopped from challenging VRS and seeking reinstatement as the employee has already pocketed the money 2 (2008)14 SCC 58
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29848 WP No. 48329 of 2018 C/W WP No. 48330 of 2018 and received the other benefits in accordance with the said scheme. Since the employees who have approached the Labour Court claiming that by deceitful means or coercion, they were made to accept the voluntary retirement and received the benefit thereunder, it would be equitable to direct that any employee who wants to maintain a petition under Section 31(3) of the MPIR Act against the said VRS and to seek reinstatement, should return the benefits received to the employer, subject to the condition and undertaking as offered by the learned counsel for the appellant, that in the event, the Labour Court directs refund of the amount and other benefits to the employee concerned, the same would be restored to the employee with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum. It is made clear that the Labour Court shall decline to proceed with the application of the employee who does not refund the amount to the employer as hereinabove directed. The learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the benefits being refunded to the employer during the pendency of the case before the Labour Court subject to the result of the case."
x x x
87. The learned counsel for the Company, submitted that the direction of refund of amount
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29848 WP No. 48329 of 2018 C/W WP No. 48330 of 2018 is proper, fair and in consonance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. If the case of the workmen is that they had never accepted retirement voluntarily; that it was imposed upon them under duress and they were forced to receive payment under voluntary retirement scheme under pressure, compulsion or coercion and were constrained to approach the Labour Court asserting that they continued to be workmen of the Company, it was expected of them even in absence of any order or direction to refund the amount received by them. They could not have resiled from the position by retaining the benefits which they never wanted but were thrust upon them against their will. The workmen could not have best of both the worlds i.e. to contend that they are still workmen of the Company but at the same time, they would not part with the amount received by them for leaving the Company for ever. The High Court, balancing equity between the parties, issued direction to return the amount received under the scheme which calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
x x x
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29848
WP No. 48329 of 2018
C/W WP No. 48330 of 2018
100. Even otherwise, according to the
workmen, they were compelled to accept the amount and they received such amount under coercion and duress. In our considered opinion, they cannot retain the benefit if they want to prosecute claim petitions instituted by them with the Labour Court. Hence, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as to refund of amount cannot be termed unjust, inequitable or improper. Hence, even if it is held that a "technical" contention raised by the workmen has some force, this Court which again exercises discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, will not interfere with a direction which is in consonance with the doctrine of equity. It has been rightly said that a person "who seeks equity must do equity". Here the workmen claim benefits as workmen of the Company, but they do not want to part with the benefit they have received towards retirement and severance of relationship of master and servant. It simply cannot be permitted. In our judgment, therefore, the final direction issued by the Division Bench needs no interference, particularly when the Company has also approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution."
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29848 WP No. 48329 of 2018 C/W WP No. 48330 of 2018
12. The Apex Court, in the case of Man Singh stated supra, has held that a direction to the workmen to deposit in Court the amount received by the petitioners under the VRS cannot be unjust, inequitable or improper, as it would not be equitable to allow the workmen to retain the benefits received towards the retirement, if he wants to prosecute his claim before the Labour Court.
13. The Apex Court, in the decision stated supra, has observed that even assuming that the workmen are compelled to accept the amount, and they received such amount under coercion and duress, they cannot retain the benefit if they want to prosecute the petitions instituted by them with the Labour Court.
14. In the instant case, the petitioners who have received the benefit under the Scheme, but does not want to part with the benefit they received towards retirement cannot be simply permitted to prosecute the matter before the Labour Court, "the person who claims equity needs to do equity", this Court finds no merit in the submission
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29848 WP No. 48329 of 2018 C/W WP No. 48330 of 2018 made on behalf of the petitioners and the order passed by the Labour Court is justified and point framed for consideration is answered accordingly and this Court pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petitions are dismissed.
(ii) The impugned orders passed by the Labour Court stands confirmed.
(iii) The Labour Court to dispose of the reference as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE S* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33