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
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
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
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
2011 LLR 1009
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29848
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
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
(2008)14 SCC 58
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29848
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
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
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
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
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*
