Karnataka High Court

Workmen Of Binny Ltd vs The Management Of Binny Ltd on 5 November, 2024

                                                   -1-
                                                             NC: 2024:KHC:45216
                                                             WP No. 999 of 2010




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

                                                BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
                                WRIT PETITION NO.999 OF 2010 (L-RES)
                       BETWEEN:

                       WORKMEN OF BINNY LIMITED
                       REPRESENTED BY BINNY
                       KARMIKARA SANGHA BY ITS
                       GENERAL SECRETARY
                       NO.23/2, I MAIN ROAD
                       SESHADRIPURAM
                       BENGALURU - 560 020.
                       PRESENT ADDRESS
                       NO.11, DR. T.C.M. ROYAN ROAD
                       BENGALURU - 560053.
                       BY ITS ADVOCATE K.S. SUBRAHMANYA.
                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                       (BY SRI. K S SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by
SHARMA ANAND
                       AND:
CHAYA
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
                       1.    THE MANAGEMENT OF BINNY LTD
                             AGRAHARAM ROAD
                             BENGALURU - 560 023
                             REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
                             BY ITS ADVOCATES,
                             M/S. KASTURI ASSOCIATES

                             THE MANAGEMENT OF
                             S.V. GLOBAL MILL LIMITED
                             NO.106, ARMENIAN STREET
                            -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:45216
                                       WP No. 999 of 2010




   CHENNAI - 600 001.
   REPRESENTED BY ITS
   ASST. GENERAL MANAGER
   MR. R. MURALI
   BY ITS ADVOCATE
   MR. SHIRISH KRISHNA.
                                             ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FRO
SMT. K SUBHA ANANTHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE AWARD DATED 13.03.2009 VIDE (ANNEXURE-N)
HEREIN AND HOLD THAT REFUSAL OF WARK TO 24 WORKMEN
LISTED   IN   THE REFERENCE IS ILLEGAL       RETRENCHMENT
HAVING BEEN EFFECTED WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF 25 N OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT,
AND ALSO GRANT RELIEF OF REINSTATEMENT WITH FULL
BACK WAGES, CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE CONCERNED WORKMEN.
THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY FURTHER BE PLEASED TO HOLD
THAT THESE WORKMEN ARE ENTITLED TO BE CONFIRMED AS
PERMANENT OPERATIVES/ OPERATIVE ASSISTANTS IN TERMS
OF SETTLEMENT DATED        19.07.1989 AND PAID DA IN
ADDITIONA TO BASIC WAGES WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATES
THEY     WERE   WORKING   AS     OPERATIVE   /   OPERATIVE
ASSISTANTS.

       THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                 -3-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:45216
                                             WP No. 999 of 2010




CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH


                         ORAL ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed by the First Party, challenging

the challenging the Award in Ref. No.30/97 dated 13.03.2009

on the file of Presiding Officer, I Addl. Labour Court at

Bangalore, rejecting the reference.

2. Relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are

that, the petitioner is a Union, registered under the Trade

Unions Act, 1926, alleging that, 24 workmen who had

successfully undergone the apprenticeship / multi-skill training

were eligible for absorption as permanent workers as per the

terms of settlement dated 19.07.1989, however the Second

Party - Management, refused to absorb their employment and

as such, the 24 workmen have approached the Government to

refer the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication.

3. In view of the Order dated 29.07.1997 passed by the

Government of Karnataka, Reference was registered as

Ref.No.30/97 before the Labour Court. Claim petition was filed

before the Labour Court wherein the 24 workmen stated that

NC: 2024:KHC:45216

they were inducted into the first respondent - Management as

apprentice, however, the Second Party - respondent No.1

herein, refused to accept them as permanent workers and that

apart, the issuance of the notice dated 11.01.1997 (Annexure-

D) by the respondent No.1 is illegal and as such, the 24 alleged

workmen sought for interference of the Labour Court.

4. After issuance of summons, the Second Party -

Management entered appearance and filed counter statement

denying the settlement dated 19.07.1989 and raised a specific

contention that the 24 alleged workmen were appointed as

trainees received stipend and they were not identified as

permanent employees and therefore, sought for dismissal of

the claim petition filed by the petitioners / Union, herein.

5. The Labour Court after considering the pleadings on

record, considered the reference order made by the

Government to consider whether the 24 employees have to be

accepted as employees of respondent No.1 herein. Before the

Labour Court, the petitioners herein have examined five

witnesses as W.W.1 to W.W.5 and marked 61 documents as

Exs.W1 to W64. On behalf of the Second Party, official of the

NC: 2024:KHC:45216

Management was examined as M.W.1 and produced ten

documents and same were marked as Exs.M1 to M10. The

Labour Court after considering the material on record, by

Award dated 13.03.2009 (Annexure-N), rejected the Reference

and being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this

Court.

6. I have heard Sri. K.S. Subrahmanya, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners/Union, Sril K. Mohan Kumar,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. K. Subha Ananthi,

learned counsel for respondent No.1, and Sri. Shirish Krishna,

learned counsel for respondent No.2.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended

that, the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the

petitioners herein have been appointed as trainees / multi-

skilled operative trainees, and accordingly, these persons

cannot be considered as Workmen under Section 2(s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is erroneous. He further

contended that, the petitioners herein have examined five

witnesses who have deposed that they have been considered

and identified as regular employees of the respondent No.1 and

NC: 2024:KHC:45216

therefore, the evidence of workmen was ignored by the Labour

Court and accordingly, it is submitted that the Labour Court has

committed an error in arriving at a conclusion to reject the

Reference without considering the letters addressed by these

alleged workmen as per Annexure-C to the Writ Petition. He

also invited the attention of the Court to the evidence of

W.W.1(Annexure-K) and submitted that the respondent -

Management ought to have classified these persons as

permanent workmen and without doing so, the finding recorded

by the Labour Court is required to be interfered with in this Writ

Petition.

8. Per contra, Sri. K. Mohan Kumar, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that the

petitioners herein have not produced any iota of document to

establish that they have been employed permanently. It is also

the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent

No.1 that, as the petitioners herein have admitted before the

Labour Court that they have been appointed as trainees /

apprentices that itself would make it clear that the Reference

has been rightly rejected by the Labour Court. In this regard,

learned counsel referred to the Judgment of the Hon'ble

NC: 2024:KHC:45216

Supreme Court in the case of MUKESH K. TRIPATHI Vs. Sr.

DIVISIONAL MANAGER, L.I.C. AND OTHERS, reported in AIR

2004 SC 4179 and argued that no interference is called for in

this Writ Petition.

9. Sri. Shirish Krishna, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2, submitted that, respondent No.1 - Company

has been wound up as per order of the BIFR and the

respondent No.2 has taken the affairs of the respondent No.1

and during the said period the petitioners herein were no more

the workmen of the respondent No.1 and therefore, it is

submitted that as the petitioners herein themselves have

admitted before the Labour Court that they have been

appointed as trainees, no interference is called for in this Writ

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. In the light of the submissions made by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties, on careful examination of the

evidence on record, as per the evidence of one Kemparaju, S/o

Puttalingaiah (Annexure-K), wherein, he has deposed that he

was appointed as an apprentice for some period and thereafter

as multi-skilled Operative Trainee for some months. It is also

NC: 2024:KHC:45216

deposed that as per the Settlement of 1989, these trainees will

have to be classified as workmen from 01.01.1993 and the said

aspect makes it clear that these 24 workmen were never

treated as 'workmen' and they were appointed as trainees by

the respondent No.1. It is also to be noted from the claim

petition at Annexure-F, wherein the pleadings at paragraph

No.5 would make it clear that, these petitioners were appointed

as trainees / apprentices and their stipend was periodically

increased as per the terms of the Settlement for some period.

However, nothing is forthcoming from the claim petition itself

that they were appointed as permanent employees. In that

view of the matter, taking into consideration the finding

recorded by the Labour Court, wherein, the Labour Court after

appreciating the evidence of workmen i.e., W.W.1 to W.W.5,

rightly arrived at the conclusion that these petitioners were

appointed as trainees / apprentices and were not engaged in

service as permanent employees. Taking into consideration the

finding recorded by the Labour Court at paragraph No.18 of the

impugned Award, it is concluded that these employees were

working in various Departments of the first respondent -

Management as Trainees or multi-skilled Operative Trainees

NC: 2024:KHC:45216

and at no point of time they were appointed or made as

permanent workmen. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

MUKESH K. TRIPATHI(supra), observed at para Nos.22, 37 and

38 of its Judgment, which is extracted as below:

22. It may be true, as has been submitted by Ms. Jaisingh, that S.K. Verma (supra) has not been expressly overruled in H.R. Adyanthaya (supra) but once the said decision has been held to have been rendered per incuriam, it cannot be said to have laid down a good law.

This Court is bound by the decision of the Constitution Bench.

********************

37. It is true that the definition of 'workman' as contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is exhaustive.

38. The interpretation clause contained in a statute although may deserve a broader meaning having employed the word 'includes' but therefor also it is necessary to keep in view the scheme of the object and purport of the statute which takes him out of the said definition. Furthermore, the interpretation section begins with the words "unless the context otherwise requires".

11. Having taken note of the declaration of law made by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above, I am of the view that,

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:45216

the Labour Court rightly rejected the Reference made by the

Government to consider the case of the petitioners herein as

workmen of respondent No.1.

12. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this

writ petition and this Court is having limited jurisdiction to

interfere with the well reasoned Award made by the Labour

Court by considering the entire aspect of the matter and this

Court cannot sit as an Appellate court to disturb the well