Full Judgment Text
- 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
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 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,
WHITEFIELD ROAD,
MAHADEVAPURA POST,
BANGALORE-560 048.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI VINAYAK VAMANRAO KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
PRAMILA G V
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF
IFB AUTOMOTIVES PVT LTD.,
NO.16, VISWSHWARAIAH INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
ST
1 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,
ND
D.NO.80, 2 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,
ST ST
1 CROSS, 1 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
ND
2 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:
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. 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,
ND
2 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,
RD
RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA, 3 CROSS,
RD
3 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
ST
ESTATE, 1 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
TH
FOR ORDERS ON 26 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
1
£Á£ÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ £À£ÀUÉ £ÉÆÃqÀ®Ä PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ ¹éÃPÀÈwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÉÝãÉ. EzÀÄ ¤JA.
DVzÉ. vÀ£Àß ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà PÉ®¸À PÉÆqÀzÉà ¸ÉÆÃzÀj ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ
”
¨ÉøÀgÀªÀ®èzÉà £À£Àß ¨ÁQ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀ 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 PÉýPÉÆAqÀAvÀºÀ J Áè ¥ÀjºÁgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¹PÀÌAvÉ DVªÉ.
DzÀgÉ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀzÉà ¸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 -
WP No. 10131 of 2018
C/W WP No. 3512 of 2018
WP No. 3513 of 2018
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