Karnataka High Court
M/S Canara Lighting Industries Pvt Ltd vs Mrs. Merlyn Sujatha K on 3 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24956-DB
WA No. 436 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL No. 436 OF 2024 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S CANARA LIGHTING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT,
AIRPORT ROAD,
MANGALURU-574150.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
MR. AJEET KHARE,
S/O MR. CHANDRA PRAKASH KHARE,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HARISH V. S., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
VALLI
MARIMUTHU
MRS. MERLYN SUJATHA K.,
Location:
High Court of D/O MR. IGNATIUS COLACO,
Karnataka RESIDING AT 3RD CROSS,
LAND LINKS,
KONCHADY, DEREBAIL,
MANGALURU-575008.
...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED ON IA No.
1/2022 IN WP No. 4325/2021 (L-RES), DATED 10.07.2023 AND ALLOW
THE ABOVE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24956-DB
WA No. 436 of 2024
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard learned advocate Mr.V.S. Harish for the appellant.
2. The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated
10.07.2023 passed below Interim Application No.1 of 2022 in
pending Writ Petition No.4325 of 2021. The order impugned is an
interim order.
3. By virtue of the order, the petitioner-appellant was directed to
pay wages to the respondent-workman under Section 17B of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Industrial
Disputes Act'). In the interlocutory application, the ground raised
by the workman was that the employer was hostile to him and the
workman was likely to be subjected to disciplinary proceedings on
the allegation of unauthorised absence and that therefore, the
order of reinstatement will have to be substituted by direction of
payment of wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
3.1 Looking at the background, the writ petition was filed by the
appellant-employer challenging the judgment and order of the
NC: 2024:KHC:24956-DB
Labour Court, whereby the workman was directed to be reinstated
with back-wages. It appears that the appellant-employer's case
was that the workman was reinstated on 29.08.2022, when the
employer challenged the judgment and order of the Labour Court.
The facts were in dispute with rival assertions as to whether
pursuant to the order of reinstatement, the workman reported for
duty or that he was not permitted to resume the duty.
3.2. It appears that order came to be passed by learned Single
Judge on 07.02.2022, whereby submission on the part of
appellant-company was noted that the company was ready to
reinstate the respondent in service within two weeks. It appears
that the contempt proceedings were required to be filed and until
26.08.2022, the petitioner-management did not reinstate the
workman in spite of the notices given by the workman seeking for
reporting on duty. Even a bailable warrant was issued against the
employer in contempt proceedings. Be as that it may.
3.3. It appears that the petitioner was subsequently reinstated
and was permitted to be joined service from 29.08.2022 till
03.09.2022, which was for six days. It is the case of the workman
that thereafter the management-appellant herein did not allow him
NC: 2024:KHC:24956-DB
to join and to discharge the normal duties and the workman had to
make a representation before the management. At this stage, as
observed by learned Single Judge, management without taking into
any other recourse, straightaway proceeded to issue notice to the
workman alleging that the workman had committed act of
misconduct of remaining unauthorisedly absent by not continuing
on the duty.
3.4 Thus, it is the case of the employer, by issuing the show
cause notice, that the workman remained unauthorisedly absent,
whereas according to workman, he was permitted to be on duty
only for six days and that the employer was raising a pretext of
unauthorised absence against the workman not to continue
reinstatement for him.
4. It is in these circumstances, that the I.A. was filed seeking
substitution of the order of reinstatement which was passed in
course of the proceedings of the petition with the direction to pay to
the workman the wages under Section 17B of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
NC: 2024:KHC:24956-DB
5. The fact remains that the reinstatement of the petitioner and
his continuance on duty is marred by rival allegations. The fact
which is undisputedly obtained is that the workman is not in service
and is not reinstated. The petition of the employer against the
judgment and award of the Labour Court is pending. The
reinstatement of the petitioner is not done amidst the rival
allegations as above.
5.1 In that view and in view of the factum that the petitioner is not
in service and does not stand reinstated during the pendency of the
petition filed by the petitioner, the order passed by learned Single
Judge directing payment of wages under Section 17B of the
Industrial Disputes Act could not be said to be unreasonable or
illegal. Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act would operate
statutorily when the workman is not reinstated and the petition of
the employer is pending.
5.2 Even otherwise, the order is an interim order which does not
decide the rights of the parties finally. This Court, for all the above
reasons, is not inclined to entertain the appeal,
NC: 2024:KHC:24956-DB
6. The operation of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act
and payment of backwages to the workman thereunder shall be
subject to compliance of the conditions stated in the said Section.
6.1 While parting, it is observed and it is expected that learned
Single Judge will decide the main writ petition as early as possible
and preferably within three months from today.
7. With the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed of.
In view of disposal of appeal, interlocutory applications would
not survive and they stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MV
