[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Raghu vs The Management Of on 15 April, 2026

-1-
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 10131 OF 2018 (L-TER)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 3512 OF 2018 (L-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 3513 OF 2018 (L-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 3514 OF 2018 (L-TER)
WRIT PETITION NO. 3515 OF 2018 (L-TER)
WRIT PETITION NO. 10129 OF 2018 (L-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 10130 OF 2018 (L-TER)
WRIT PETITION NO. 10132 OF 2018 (L-RES)

IN WP No. 10131/2018

BETWEEN:

H P SOMASHEKAR,
S/O B.PILLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
D.NO.366, HOODI VILLAGE,
Digitally WHITEFIELD ROAD,
signed by MAHADEVAPURA POST,
PRAMILA G V BANGALORE-560 048.
Location: ...PETITIONER
HIGH COURT (BY SRI VINAYAK VAMANRAO KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
OF
KARNATAKA AND:

THE MANAGEMENT OF
IFB AUTOMOTIVES PVT LTD.,
NO.16, VISWSHWARAIAH INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
1ST MAIN, OFF WHITEFIELD ROAD,
MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE-560 048.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI J KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE)
-2-
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE AWARD DTD 5.6.2017 PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL
LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN I.D. NO.31/2013 AS AT
ANNEXURE-A AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO RESTORE
HIM INTO THEIR SERVICES AS TECHNICIAN WITH CONTINUITY
OF SERVICE AND CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

IN WP NO. 3512/2018

BETWEEN:

M/S IFB AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD.,
NO.16, VISWESHWARA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
STR MAIN ROAD, OFF. WHITEFIELD ROAD,
MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 048,
BY ITS DIRECTOR & CFO,
SRI SIDDARTHA CHATTARJI.
...PETITIONER

(BY SRI J KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. GANGADHARA N.S,
S/O LATE NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
NO.179/2, H..P. SURYANARAYANACHARI,
D.NO.80, 2ND CROSS, WHITEFIELD ROAD,
HOODI, MAHADEVPURA POST,
BANGALORE 560 048.
...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI NARAYANA SWAMY K B, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN I.D.NO.30/2013 ON
THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, SECOND
ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE;QUASH THE
IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 05.06.2017 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE SECOND ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE, IN I.D.NO.30/2013, IN SO FAR AS THE
-3-
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

ORDER DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY AN AMOUNT
OF RS.1,00,000/- AS COMPENSATION TO THE
RESPONDENT IS CONCERNED IN THE IMPUGNED AWARD,
APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNEXURE-G.

IN WP NO. 3513/2018

BETWEEN:

M/S IFB AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,
NO.16, VISWESHWARA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
STR MAIN ROAD, OFF. WHITEFIELD ROAD,
MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 048,
BY ITS DIRECTOR & CFO,
SRI. SIDDARTHA CHATTARJI.
...PETITIONER

(BY SRI J KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. SOMASHEKAR,
S/O B. PILLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
NO.366, HOODI VILLAGE,
MAHADEVAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 048.
...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VINAYAK VAMANRAO KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN I.D.31/2013 ON THE FILES
OF THE HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, SECOND ADDL.
LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU; QUASH THE IMPUGNED
AWARD DATED 5.6.2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
SECOND ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN
I.D.31/2013 IN SO FAR AS THE ORDER DIRECTING THE
PETITIONER TO PAY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,00,000/- AS
COMPENSATION TO THE RESPONDENT IS CONCERNED IN
THE IMPUGNED AWARD, APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS
-4-
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

ANNEX-G.

IN WP NO. 3514/2018

BETWEEN:

M/S IFB AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD.,
NO.16, VISWESHWARA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
STR MAIN ROAD, OFF. WHITEFIELD ROAD,
MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 048,
BY ITS DIRECTOR & CFO,
SRI. SIDDARTHA CHATTARJI.
...PETITIONER

(BY SRI J KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. RAGHU G.M,
S/O MALLAPPA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF RAGHAVENDRA NILAY,
1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, LAKSHMINAGAR LAYOUT,
MAHADEVPURA POST, BANGALORE 560 048.
...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI NARAYANA SWAMY K B, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN I.D.NO.32/2013 ON THE
FILES OF THE HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, 2ND
ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE.QUASH THE
IMPUGNED AWARD DTD 5.6.2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
2ND ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN
I.D.NO.32/2013, IN SO FAR AS THE ORDER DIRECTING
THE PETITIONER TO PAY AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,000/- AS
CONPENSATION TO THE RESPONDENT IS CONCERNED IN
THE IMPUGNED AWARD, APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS
ANNEXURE-G.
-5-
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

IN WP NO. 3515/2018

BETWEEN:

(BY SRI J KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. SHEKAR NAIK,
S/O SEETHYA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
NO.8, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
OPP. MANASU RESIDENCE,
SEETHARAMPALYA, MAHADEVAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 048.
...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI NARAYANA SWAMY K B, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN I.D.NO.33/2013 ON
THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, SECOND
ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE;QUASH THE
IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 05.06.2017 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE SECOND ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE, IN I.D.NO.33/2013, IN SO FAR AS THE
ORDER DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY AN AMOUNT
OF RS.1,00,000/- AS COMPENSATION TO THE
RESPONDENT IS CONCERNED IN THE IMPUGNED AWARD,
APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNEXURE-F.

IN WP NO. 10129/2018
-6-
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

BETWEEN:

GANGADHARA N S,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O LATE NAGAPPA,
C/O H P SURYANARAYANACHARI,
NO.179/2, DOOR NO.180,
2ND CROSS, WHITEFIELD ROAD,
HOODI, MAHADEVAPURA POST,
BANGALORE-560048.
...PETITIONER

(BY SRI NARAYANA SWAMY K B, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE MANAGEMENT OF
IFB AUTOMOTIVES PVT LTD,
NO.16, VISWESHWARAIAH INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
IST MAIN, OFF WHITEFIELD ROAD,
MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE-560048
...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI J KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 05.06.2017 PASSED BY II
ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN
I.D.NO.30/2013 AS AT ANNEXURE-A AND TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO RESTORE HIM INTO THEIR SERVICES AS
TECHNICIAN WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

IN WP NO. 10130/2018

BETWEEN:

RAGHU,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O LATE MALLAPPA SHETTY,
RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA, 3RD CROSS,
3RD MAIN, LAXMISAGARA LAYOUT,
-7-
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

MAHADEVAPURA POST, BANGALORE.
...PETITIONER

(BY SRI NARAYANA SWAMY K B,ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE MANAGEMENT OF
IFB AUTOMOTIVES PVT LTD.,
NO.16, VISWESHWARAIAH INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
1ST MAIN, OFF WHITEFIELD ROAD,
MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE-560 048.
...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI J KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 05.06.2017 PASSED BY II
ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN I.D.
NO.32/2013 AS AT ANNEXURE-A AND TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO RESTORE HIM INTO THEIR SERVICES AS
TECHNICIAN WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

IN WP NO. 10132/2018

BETWEEN:

SHEKAR NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O SRI SEETHYA NAYAK,
NO.8, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
OPP MANASA RESIDENCY, SEETHARAMA PALYA,
MAHADEVAPURA POST, BANGALORE - 560048.
...PETITIONER

(BY SRI K B NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE MANAGEMENT OF
IFB AUTOMOTIVES PVT LTD.,
-8-
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

NO.16,VISWESHWARAIAH INDUSTRIAL
ESTATE, 1ST MAIN, OFF WHITEFIELD ROAD,
MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE-560 048.
...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI J KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE AWARD DTD 5.6.2017 PASSED BY II
ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN
I.D.NO.33/2013 AS AT ANNEXURE-A AND TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO RESTORE HIM INTO THEIR SERVICES AS
TECHNICIAN WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 26TH MARCH, 2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

CAV ORDER

Writ Petition No. 10131/2018 is filed by the workman

challenging the part of the award dated 05.06.2017 passed by

the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, in I.D. No. 31/2013.

2. In terms of the said Award, the Labour Court has

allowed the claim statement filed by the workman in part. The

respondent-Management is directed to pay compensation of
-9-
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

Rs.1,00,000/- to the workman and the Management is directed

to issue an appointment order with effect from 01.11.2010 to

the workman in IFB Appliances Pvt. Ltd. with continuity of

service and consequential benefits. The workman's claim for

appointment in IFB Automotive Private Limited is rejected.

3. Aggrieved by the Award rejecting the claim for

appointment in IFB Automotive Private Limited, the petitioner-

workman is before this Court.

4. The Management has filed Writ Petition No.

3513/2018 assailing the Award dated 05.06.2017 in I.D.

No.31/2013 to the extent of directing payment of Rs.

1,00,000/- as compensation.

5. Writ Petition No.10132/2018 is filed by the

workman challenging part of the Award dated 05.06.2017

passed by the Second Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, in

I.D. No.33/2013.

6. In terms of the said Award, the Labour Court

allowed the workman's claim statement in part. The

respondent-Management was directed to pay compensation of

Rs.1,00,000/- to the workman and to issue an appointment
- 10 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

order effective from 04.11.2010 for a position at IFB Appliances

Pvt. Ltd. This appointment includes continuity of service,

consequential benefits, and all other benefits under various

Labour Statutes. However, the workman's claim for an

appointment at IFB Automotive Private Limited was rejected.

7. Aggrieved by the Award to the extent that it

rejected the claim for appointment at IFB Automotive Private

Limited, the workman has approached this Court.

8. The respondent/Management has filed Writ Petition

No.3515/2018, assailing the Award dated 05.06.2017 in I.D.

No.33/2013 specifically regarding the direction to pay the

awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

9. Writ Petition No.10129/2018 is filed by the

workman challenging part of the Award dated 05.06.2017

passed by the Second Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, in

I.D. No.30/2013.

10. In terms of the said Award, the Labour Court

allowed the workman's claim statement in part. The

respondent-Management was directed to pay compensation of

Rs.1,00,000/- to the workman and to issue an appointment
- 11 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

order effective from 04.11.2010 for a position at IFB Appliances

Pvt. Ltd., with continuity of service, consequential benefits, and

all statutory benefits. The workman's claim for appointment at

IFB Automotive Private Limited was rejected.

11. Aggrieved by the Award rejecting the claim for

appointment at IFB Automotive Private Limited, the workman

has approached this Court.

12. The respondent-Management has filed Writ Petition

No.3512/2018, assailing the Award dated 05.06.2017 in I.D.

No.30/2013 regarding the direction to pay the awarded

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

13. Writ Petition No.10130/2018 is filed by the

workman challenging part of the Award dated 05.06.2017

passed by the Second Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, in

I.D.No.32/2013.

14. In terms of the said Award, the Labour Court

allowed the workman's claim statement in part. The

respondent-Management was directed to pay compensation of

Rs. 1,00,000/- to the workman and to issue an appointment

order effective from 01.11.2010 for a position at IFB Appliances
- 12 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

Pvt. Ltd., with continuity of service, consequential benefits, and

all statutory benefits. The workman's claim for appointment at

IFB Automotive Private Limited was rejected.

15. Aggrieved by the Award rejecting the claim for

appointment at IFB Automotive Private Limited, the workman

has approached this Court.

16. The respondent-Management has filed Writ Petition

No.3514/2018, assailing the Award dated 05.06.2017 in I.D.

No. 32/2013 regarding the direction to pay the awarded

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

17. For the sake of convenience, the workman is

referred to as the petitioner and the employer is referred to as

the respondent, irrespective of their ranking in the Writ

Petitions.

18. The petitioner-workman in W.P.No.10131/2018

claims as under:

18.1 The petitioner joined the respondent on 20.05.1997

as a casual worker. On 01.11.2010, the workman was

appointed as a Regular Technician. On 28.09.2012, the
- 13 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

respondent terminated the services of the workman. The

petitioner raised a dispute on the premise that the termination

is illegal.

18.2 The respondent-employer before the Labour Court,

even before the statement of objection was filed, submitted a

memo on 29.07.2013, which reads as under:

"The Second Party herein most respectfully submits, that
without prejudice to it's right to file a detailed counter
statement in the above matter, it is respectfully submitted
that this honble court be pleased to direct the first party
workman to report to work at M/s. I F B APPLICANCES (sic)
LTD."

18.3 It is further submitted that, all other terms and

conditions of employment, shall remain unaltered and that the

offer of employment is with continuity of service and protection

of the wages as already drawn by the workman hitherto.

18.4 The petitioner filed a reply to the said memo on

12.08.2013. In the said reply, essentially the petitioner-

workman contended that, he was appointed by IFB Automotive

Private Limited and is governed by the wages and service

conditions applicable to employees of IFB Automotive Private
- 14 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

Limited. IFB Appliances Private Limited is a separate company

and a distinct legal entity. The offer made by IFB Automotive

Limited amounts to a transfer of service from one company to

another and the same is not permissible in law, and it also

affects the seniority of the workman.

18.5 In addition, the workman in the said reply memo

dated 12.08.2013 has further stated as under:

"2. However, in order to respect the offer of II
Party/Management and in order to settle the dispute
amicably, I Party/Workman agrees to report to work at IFB
Appliances Ltd. for a short period and subject to an
assurance by the II Party/Management that he would be
taken back to duty at II Party/Management with in a period
of 3- 4 months".

(Emphasis supplied)

18.6 To the said reply dated 12.08.2013, the

respondent/Employer filed a rejoinder on 22.08.2013. The said

rejoinder reads as under:

"xxxxx First party's acceptance of offer of employment to
work in the sister concern for a period of only 3 to 4
months, is not acceptable.
- 15 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

It is respectfully submitted that in view of the recession
that is being faced by the second party, there is no
adequate work in the second party establishment, and that
the second party is also contemplating of declaring lay-
off/and or retrench workmen due to lack of work in the
factory. In fact there are several days where workmen are
kept idle and paid wages, which has considerably increased
the overhead cost and it has had a deleterious bearing on
the second party.

Under such circumstances, it is advisable that the
workmen, report to work, at the place where employment
is offered, and continue to work there and earn wages, and
that they will in no way be prejudiced in the employment
conditions.

Wherefore, it is prayed that this hon'ble court be pleased to
direct the first party to report to work forthwith and earn
wages, without treating this as a prestige issue."

(Emphasis supplied)

18.7 To the said rejoinder dated 22.08.2013, the

petitioner/workman filed a reply dated 26.08.2013 and it reads

as under:

"The I party in the above matter submits that he will report
for duty w.e.f 2.9.2013 at 8.30 am as desired by the II
Party.
- 16 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

Hence the I pray that this Hon'ble Court may be
(sic)directed (sic) the II party permit them(sic) to resume
duty in the interest of justice and equity".

18.8 The petitioners in W.P. No.10132/2018, W.P.

No.10129/2018 and W.P. No.10130/2018 were also terminated

on 28.09.2012. It is relevant to notice the contents of the

memos filed in all the cases before the Labour Court are the

same. Hence, the contents of the memos in other cases are

not reproduced.

20. Admittedly, there is no Court order on the above-

said memos filed by the parties, though both sides had prayed

for orders on the said memos.

21. There is no dispute that the petitioners-workmen

joined IFB Appliances Ltd. However, the claim petitions were

not withdrawn. The respondent filed the counter statement,

and the respondent asserted that the workman has joined

employment with IFB Appliances Private Limited, which is the

sister concern of the respondent/Employer. It is pleaded that

the workmen have undergone training for one month and the

salary has been enhanced and continuity of services and back
- 17 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

wages for the period 28.09.2012 to 01.09.2013 will be provided

and the seniority will be protected.

22. In addition to that, without prejudice to the

contentions raised in the counter statement, the respondent-

Employer has contended that, in case the workmen are not

willing to continue in employment with IFB Appliances Pvt. Ltd.,

the Court may award suitable compensation to the workmen

instead of reinstatement.

23. Thereafter, the parties led evidence and the Labour

Court has passed the impugned Award.

24. As already noticed, the workmen are before this

Court challenging the part of the Award denying employment

under IFB Automotive Private Limited and the respondent-

employer is before this Court challenging the Award directing

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

25. Learned counsel appearing for the workmen would

urge that the Labour Court erred in not passing an award for

reinstatement and not granting continuity of service under IFB

Automotive Private Limited. It is urged that, the procedure for

lay-off or retrenchment was not followed and, without there
- 18 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

being any reason, the workmen have been removed from

service; the Labour Court could not have directed appointment

under IFB Appliances Private Limited, which is not a party to

the proceeding.

26. It is also urged that the workmen joined IFB

Appliances Private Limited as an interim measure on the

condition that the workmen should be reappointed in IFB

Automotive Private Limited and that the workmen never agreed

to be in permanent employment under IFB Appliances Private

Limited.

27. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent

urged that the offer was made by the respondent to join the

services under IFB Appliances Private Limited, which is the

sister concern of the respondent-Employer, and the offer also

ensured continuity of service, pay protection, and seniority.

28. Initially, when the workmen filed a separate counter

to the memo filed by the respondent-employer, each workman

put a rider that he is joining employment only for a period of 3-

4 months. However, later, after the rejoinder by the

respondent, each workman filed one more memo dated
- 19 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

26.08.2013, unconditionally agreeing to join the employment

under IFB Appliances Private Limited. Thereafter, the workmen

underwent training for one month in IFB Appliances Private

Limited and is working under IFB Appliances Private Limited.

That being the position, the workmen could not have proceeded

with the claim petitions, as the dispute did not subsist. Thus, it

is urged that the Labour Court, having directed the issuance of

an appointment order with IFB Appliances Pvt. Ltd. with

retrospective effect to provide continuity of service, could not

have awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

29. The Court has considered the contentions raised at

the Bar and perused the records.

30. The dispute arose on the premise that, the

termination of the petitioners-workmen is illegal. The prayer in

each claim petition is to set aside the order terminating the

petitioner and to reinstate the petitioner under IFB Automotive

Pvt. Ltd.

31. The respondent filed a memo dated 29.07.2013

stating that the respondent is willing to offer employment to

the workman in IFB Appliances Limited, which is a sister
- 20 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

concern of the respondent-Employer. Thereafter, the counter

memos have been filed, as already noted above. The workmen

joined IFB Appliances Private Limited. Admittedly, there is no

Court order on the above-said memos.

32. The respondent-employer filed a statement of

objection recording the fact that, the petitioners are employed

in IFB Appliances Private Limited.

33. Despite the stand taken in the counter and despite

the workmen joining the employment under IFB Appliances

Ltd., the claim petitions were not withdrawn. A joint memo

reporting the alleged settlement was not presented before the

Labour Court.

34. On 05.06.2014, the Labour Court framed the issues

as under:

"(1) Whether termination of first party/claimant is unjust,
arbitrary, and illegal?

(2) Whether the second party/respondent proves that
the first-party/claimant refused to carry out the work
assigned to him?

(3) What relief is first party/claimant entitled?
- 21 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

(4) What award?"

35. As can be noticed, it is evident that no issue was

framed relating to the subsequent employment pursuant to the

alleged settlement.

36. The respondent-employer is now contending that

the dispute was settled before the Labour Court. The

petitioners-workmen contend that evidence was led on all

issues referred to above and that it would demonstrate that,

the dispute was not settled and the employment in IFB

Appliances Private Limited was only a stop-gap or in the nature

of an interim measure.

37. The question of whether there was a settlement or

not, or whether the workmen agreed to work temporarily under

IFB Appliances Pvt. Ltd., are questions of fact required to be

decided by the Labour Court. However, no such issue was

framed.

38. Without framing any such issue, the Labour Court

proceeded to pass an award holding that each workman is

entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- and each workman is to be employed

by IFB Appliances Private Limited, which is not a party to the
- 22 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

proceeding. Although there is no specific issue relating to the

alleged settlement, the Labour Court has, in effect, upheld the

alleged settlement.

39. It is relevant to note that the findings on issues

No.1 and 2 are in favor of the petitioners.

40. From the reply memo dated 12.08.2013 filed by the

workman, it is evident that each workman imposed a condition

that, he was willing to work under IFB Appliances Private

Limited for a short period of 3 to 4 months and thereafter, the

workman filed one more memo dated 26.08.2013 stating that

he was willing to join the employment.

41. In the last reply memo dated 26.08.2013, the

workmen did not impose any condition. That would give an

indication that the workmen might have given up the claim

relating to employment for 3 to 4 months. Thus, the Court is

required to consider, "whether the petitioners have given up

their claims relating to employment under the respondent?"

42. However, what is interesting is that, in the

statement of objection, the employer has contended that the

workmen are not attending to the work outside the premises on
- 23 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

the ground that work outside the premises was not part of the

job profile. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent that

the petitioners are not wearing the uniform of IFB Appliances

Limited, stating that the petitioners are the employees of IFB

Automotive Limited.

43. The questions for consideration are, "whether the

dispute which was referred for adjudication was settled before

the Award was passed?" and "whether the Labour Court is

justified in passing the impugned award which, in effect, has

given approval to the alleged settlement without there being

any issue?"

44. In the normal course of things, the Court would

have remitted the matter to the Labour Court for considering

the said issue. The dispute is almost 14 years old. And evidence

is on record to give a finding on the said question. Thus, the

Court has proceeded to decide the said question relating to the

alleged settlement.

45. The term "settlement" is defined under Section 2(p)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act, 1947), and the

definition Section 2(p) reads as under:
- 24 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless there is anything
repugnant in the subject or context,-

XXXXXX

(p) "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the
course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written
agreement between the employer and the workmen arrived
at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding
where such agreement has been signed by the parties
thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy
thereof has been sent to an officer authorized in this behalf
by the appropriate Government and the Conciliation
Officer."

(Emphasis supplied)

46. From the said definition, it is evident that a

settlement arrived at otherwise than in the course of a

conciliation proceeding has to be in writing and signed by the

parties to it. The definition would also indicate that it has to be

in a prescribed form and a copy has to be sent to the officer

authorized in this behalf by the appropriate Government and

the Conciliation Officer.

47. The respondent-employer does not assert that the

settlement was recorded in writing and signed by both parties

in the prescribed manner. The respondent is urging that the
- 25 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

"settlement" is to be gathered and understood from the

conduct of the parties and from the terms of the memos and

counter-memos filed by both parties before the Labour Court.

48. The respondent has referred to the alleged

settlement in the statement of objection filed before the Labour

Court, as can be noticed from paragraphs No.4, 5, and 6 of the

claim statement extracted below:

"(4) It is submitted that during the pendency of the
aforesaid dispute, the second party has offered
employment to the first party in their sister concern, M/s
IFB Appliances Limited, which is located adjacent to
second party. This offer of employment was made vide
Memo dated 22.08.2013 for the reasons stated therein.

(5) It is submitted that the second party has also agreed
that the first party would be paid the same salary that he
was earning earlier. It is submitted that accordingly first
party has reported to work at their sister concern effective
from 02.09.2013.

(6) It is submitted that the first party was provided training
for a period of one month so as to enable him to carry out
the work assigned to him at M/s IFB Appliances Limited,
and the first party has completed training successfully."

49. In paragraph No. 9, the respondent has stated as

under:
- 26 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

"(9) It is submitted that in view of the second party
agreeing to provide continuity of service and back wages
from the date of termination till they were reinstated in IFB
Appliances Limited, the claim of the first party does not
survive for consideration, as his claim of employment, back
wages, continuity of service having been fulfilled."

50. Whether the conduct of the workmen amounts to a

settlement as urged by the respondent or whether it operates

as an estoppel against the workmen from claiming employment

in IFB Automotive Private Limited has to be considered.

51. The Court has considered the pleadings and

evidence led by both parties.

52. In the examination-in-chief, the petitioners claim

that they have been wrongly terminated without there being

any cause. In the cross-examination of the Management

witnesses, it has been suggested that a good number of

contract laborers are working in a place where the petitioners

worked and there was no need to terminate the petitioners'

employment.
- 27 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

53. In addition, it is also stated that the petitioners

were the office bearers of the Union and, as such, were

victimized.

54. It is relevant to notice that in paragraph No.7 of the

statement of objection, the respondent has stated as under:

"7. It is submitted that as a part of his employment, the first
party is required to go to the customers' place to provide
service, and the first party despite being trained to provide
the required service, the first party has been refusing to go
the customers' place for servicing work. It is submitted that
despite the same, the first party has been granted increment
including the period he was out of employment in the second
party and his salary was enhanced from Rs.9,087/- to
Rs.17,133/-".

55. This statement of objection is also reiterated in

the examination-in-chief by the Management witness. The

aforementioned stand would indicate that the petitioners

have not given up the claim relating to employment in IFB

Automotive Limited. It is also evident from the evidence in

the petitioners' examination-in-chief. Had the petitioners

given up the claim relating to employment in IFB

Automotive Limited, there would not have been any

evidence for reinstatement.
- 28 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

56. It is also relevant to notice that the respondent

has not objected to the petitioners leading evidence relating

to employment in IFB Automotive Limited.

57. In addition, if the stand taken by the respondent

that the petitioners are not visiting the customers' places for

service on the premise that it is not their job profile in IFB

Automotive Ltd is correct, one cannot conclude that the

workman has accepted the job in IFB Appliances Ltd, by

giving up the claim for reinstatement in IFB Automotive Ltd.

58. The same analogy applies to the petitioners not

wearing the uniform of IFB Appliances Ltd. These facts

demonstrate that there was no settlement as alleged. The

petitioners undergoing training for a month in IFB

Appliances cannot be termed as an act of abandoning the

claim for reinstatement in IFB Automotive Ltd, more so in a

situation when the petitioners were pursuing the claim

before the Labour Court and were protesting against a

certain kind of work in IFB Appliances.

59. More than anything else, what is intriguing is,

why the settlement was not reported to the Labour Court by
- 29 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

presenting a joint memo or application. If there was a

settlement where the petitioners agreed to be employed in

IFB Appliances, then said settlement would have been

reported in the form of a joint memo or application signed

by both parties and the petition would have been

withdrawn. Such a course was not adopted.

60. Thus, one can certainly hold that the petitioners

have not given up the claim relating to employment in IFB

Automotive Limited. This being the position, the contention

that there was a settlement and that it has to be

ascertained from the conduct of the parties cannot be

accepted.

61. Whether the conduct of the petitioners amounts

to estoppel, cannot be considered as there is no pleading in

this behalf, and the pleading and evidence led by the

respondent-employer itself would suggest that the

petitioners were protesting about the employment in IFB

Appliances Private Limited. Thus, the principle of estoppel

cannot be applied against the petitioners.
- 30 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

62. Although the learned counsel for the respondent

has referred to the statement of WW.1 in the cross-

examination dated 20.08.2014 to contend that the

petitioner in W.P. No.10132/2018 has admitted that all the

relief claimed by him is granted, the Court is of the view

that the said statement in paragraph No.10 cannot be

construed as an admission relating to all reliefs.

63. Said paragraph No.10 reads as under:

"10. DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀð¢AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÁVzÀÝ J Áè ¨ÁQ ¸ÀA§¼À §A¢zÉ. CzÀPÉÌ

£Á£ÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ £À£ÀUÉ £ÉÆÃqÀ®Ä PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀ ¹éÃPÀÈwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÉÝÃ£É. EzÀÄ ¤JA.1
DVzÉ. vÀ£Àß ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄÃ PÉ®¸À PÉÆqÀzÉÃ ¸ÉÆÃzÀj ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀ

¨ÉÃ¸ÀgÀªÀ®èzÉÃ £À£Àß ¨ÁQ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄªÀ J Áè ¥ÀjºÁgÀ £À£ÀUÉ §A¢zÉ."

64. W.P. No.10130/2018 has admitted that all the

relief claimed by him is granted, the Court is of the view

that the said statement in paragraph No.10 cannot be

construed as an admission relating to all reliefs.

65. Said paragraph No.10 reads as under:

"£Á£ÀÄ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è PÉÃ½PÉÆAqÀAvÀºÀ J Áè ¥ÀjºÁgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¹PÀÌAvÉ DVªÉ.
DzÀgÉ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀzÉÃ ¸ÉÆÃzÀj
- 31 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è ¨ÉÃgÉ PÉ®¸À PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄÃ
£À£ÀUÉ PÉ®¸À PÉÆlÖgÉ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£ÀªÁUÀÄvÉÛ."

66. The aforementioned statements indicate that the

above two workmen have not admitted in clear terms that all

the reliefs claimed by them have been granted to them. These

statements at the most would mean reliefs granted are similar

to the relief claimed insofar as wages are concerned. It can be

gathered from the said statements that the workmen are not

happy with employment in IFB Appliances Ltd.

67. Hence, the Court is of the view that the respondent-

employer has not made out a case to establish the contention

relating to the alleged settlement.

68. The Labour Court has awarded compensation of Rs.

1,00,000/- to the petitioners, probably on the premise that the

petitioner is not given employment in the respondent-

establishment. The Court is of the view that in case a direction

is issued to reinstate the petitioners in the respondent-

Establishment, then the petitioner is not entitled to

Rs.1,00,000/- damages as awarded.
- 32 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
AND 5 OTHERS

69. There is no question of any back wages as wages

payable to the petitioner are paid by M/s IFB Appliances

Limited, which is stated to be a sister concern of the

respondent. The continuity of services is to be provided with all

other consequential benefits flowing from employment in IFB

Automotive Ltd.

70. Hence the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ Petitions No.10131/2018, 10129/2018, 10130/2018 and 10132/2018 are allowed.

(ii) The respondent-Employer in each petition is directed to reinstate the petitioner-workman in the respondent-Establishment by providing continuity of service in the respondent- Establishment and all other consequential benefits, if anything is required to be paid after adjusting the benefits paid to the petitioner- workman in the M/s IFB Appliances Limited.

(iii) Writ Petitions No.3515/2018, 3512/2018, 3513/2018, 3514/2018 are allowed in part.

(iv) The Awards in I.D.Nos.30/2013, 31/2013, 32/2013 and 33/2013 of II Additional Labour

- 33 -

AND 5 OTHERS

Court, Bengaluru directing compensation of ₹1,00,000/- are set aside.

(v) No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

BRN/GVP