The Management Of M/S Mulberry ... vs Mr M G Chowdappa
2023 Latest Caselaw 7224 Kant

                                             -1-
                                                     NC: 2023:KHC:36977-DB
                                                       WA No. 393 of 2023



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

                                          PRESENT

                   THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

                                            AND

                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

                            WRIT APPEAL NO. 393 OF 2023 (L-TER)

                   BETWEEN:

                   THE MANAGEMENT OF
                   M/S MULBERRY SILKS LTD
                   (FORMERLY MULBERRY SILK
                   INTERNATIONAL LTD)
                   NO 251-B, III PHASE,
                   BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
                   BENGALURU 562 158.
                   REPRESENTED BY ITS
                   ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
                   MR DINESH MATHUR

Digitally signed                                              ...APPELLANT
by SHARADA         (BY SRI. S N MURTHY., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
VANI B                 SRI. ANAND K R.,ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          AND:

                   MR M G CHOWDAPPA,
                   S/O SRI N GANGAPPA,
                   C/O SRI J THOMAS,
                   ADIGODANAHALLI,
                   MUTHANALUR POST,
                   ANEKAL TALUK,
                   BENGALURU 562 158
                                                           ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI.K S SUBRAHMANYA.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
                             -2-
                                      NC: 2023:KHC:36977-DB
                                        WA No. 393 of 2023




     THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
20.02.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
No-28177/2009 (L-TER) OF THE APPELLANT HEREIN AND
FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE SAID WP.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

This intra-Court appeal by the Management seeks to

call in question a learned Single Judge's order dated

20.02.2023 entered in its W.P No.28177/2009 (L-TER).

The challenge in the petition was the order dated

27.08.2009 passed by the II Additional Labour Court,

Bengaluru whereby, Application No.1/2004 filed by

respondent - workman under Section 33 C (2) of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, which in its operative portion

reads as under:

"ORDER

The application filed U/s.33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is allowed. The respondent management is directed to pay the wages due to applicant Chowdappa subsequent to the period of void dismissal i.e from 6.8.2002 upto the end of November 2003 amounting to Rs.70,487.63 ps."

NC: 2023:KHC:36977-DB WA No. 393 of 2023

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant

seeks to falter the impugned order of the learned Single

Judge principally on the ground that a litigant cannot be

worse of in his litigation. In support of that, he draws

attention of the Court to the operative portion of the

impugned order which reads as under:

"17.1. In view of the discussion held as regards the aforesaid points, the Labour Court having decided the issue by taking note the fact of the workman having been dismissed from service during the pendency of the proceedings before it, there being no permission under 33(2)(b) of I.D.Act which had obtained, no justification having been made as regards the order of dismissal, the Labour court had rightly come to a conclusion that the dismissal was improper and directed the instatement of the workman with backwages."

3. Learned counsel appearing for the workman

vehemently opposes the appeal making submission in

justification of the impugned order and the reasons on

which it has been structured.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

having perused the appeal papers, we are inclined to grant

a limited indulgence in the matter on the ground that the

NC: 2023:KHC:36977-DB WA No. 393 of 2023

appellant who was the writ petitioner could not have been

worse of in his challenge to the Section 33 C (2) order

which as already reproduced above only directed for the

payment of a sum of Rs.70,487.63, that has accrued due

by way of arrears of wages 'from 06.08.2002 upto the end

of November 2003'. That being the position the

observation of the learned Single Judge about the

dismissal of the respondent - workman and subsequent

reinstatement, etc. could not have been made.

5. Learned counsel on record appearing for the

petitioner handed a Bank Draft for the amount specified by

the Labour Court in its order dated 27.08.2009 and that

the same has been accepted by the learned counsel on

record appearing for the respondent - workman of course

reserving all his contentions and without any prejudice.

He is also right in saying that all contentions of the

workman be kept open to seek redressal before the

appropriate forum.

NC: 2023:KHC:36977-DB WA No. 393 of 2023

In the above circumstances, this writ appeal partly

succeeds; the impugned order of the learned Single Judge

to the extent it declines indulgence in the challenge to the

Labour Court order dated 27.08.2009 is upheld and that

the other observations about the alleged dismissal &

reinstatement of the workman, etc. are set at naught.

Cost made easy.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE Snb/