Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 806 (KAR)

Guru Gauge v. Raghu S.

2018-07-18

RAVI V.MALIMATH

body2018
ORDER : RAVI V. MALIMATH, J. 1. The petitioner-management is said to be engaged in manufacture of pressure gauges and its accessories. That the respondent-workman was working with the petitioner-management as a Screen Printer. He was the only workman working as a screen printer. On account of acute recession and for economic and administrative reason, the business of screen printing was discontinued. A notice of retrenchment was issued to the respondent-workman. Retrenchment compensation was also paid and the same was received by the respondent-workman. Aggrieved by the retrenchment order, the workman raised a dispute before the Labour Court. By the impugned order dated 09.04.2009, the Labour Court directed the petitioner-management to reinstate the respondent-workman to his original post with continuity of service and consequential benefits along with 50% of back-wages, subject to adjustment of retrenchment compensation if any. Questioning the same, the petitioner-management has filed the present petition. 2. Smt. Pooja M. Koorse, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the order. That the material on record would clearly indicate that the retrenchment is in accordance with law. Therefore, the question of reinstatement would not arise. That even the witnesses have stated that the business of screen printing was closed because of administrative and economic reasons. That retrenchment compensation having been accepted by the workman, the same cannot be challenged thereafter. 3. The respondent-workman is served and unrepresented. 4. On hearing learned counsel, I am of the view that appropriate relief is called for. 5. The material on record would indicate that the notice of retrenchment was issued to the workman in terms of Exhibit-Mi. Thereafter, while calculating the amount of compensation to be paid, a cheque for a sum of Rs. 40,782/- was given to the workman. He has accepted the same. Thereafter, the dispute has been raised. 6. The material and evidence on record would clearly indicate that the business of screen printing did not attract much business. Therefore, the reason for retrenchment was on account of administrative and economic reason, that they discontinued the screen printing activity. While accepting such a plea of the petitioner-management, the Labour Court therefore committed an error in directing reinstatement of the respondent-workman. 7. The question of reinstatement would not arise for consideration at all as the business of the petitioner had been stopped with reference to screen printing activity. While accepting such a plea of the petitioner-management, the Labour Court therefore committed an error in directing reinstatement of the respondent-workman. 7. The question of reinstatement would not arise for consideration at all as the business of the petitioner had been stopped with reference to screen printing activity. Hence, there was no business to run the screen printing. Therefore, the question of reinstating the workman would not arise for consideration. The said fact was not disputed by the workman. However, what he disputes is that the amount of wages paid is not appropriate. The same is explained by the petitioner-management by relying on accounts to indicate that the said amount was calculated after deducting Rs. 7,000/- paid as advance to the workman and one month's pay in lieu of notice and 15 days wages for every completed year of service towards retrenchment compensation and other legal dues. 8. However, the Labour Court was also at a tangent in holding that the petitioner-management runs another unit in the name of M/s. Karnataka Instruments. Evidence was led-in by the petitioner-management stating that there was no functional or financial integrality and interchange of workers, and there was no unity of ownership and finance. That they are two separate units. 9. Therefore, I am of the view that the Labour Court misdirected itself in holding that the workman should be accommodated in the other unit. The other unit indulged in the activity of manufacturing pressure gauges. However, there is no Department of screen printing in the alleged sister concern of the management. Hence, the finding on this account also becomes unsustainable. In view of the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the retrenchment of the workman was made in accordance with law. The Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in passing such an order of reinstating the workman. The same is opposed to the facts of the case and law. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The award of the Labour Court, Bengaluru, dated 09.04.2009, in I.D. 38 of 2005, vide Annexure-E is set-aside. Rule made absolute.