IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
'TH
DATED THIS THE I 8 DAY OF OCTOBER, 201,0--..__
PRESENT 'W V I
THE HON'BLE MR.JUST1cEy.G.SAB'HAH1T'f "
AND V ' .
THE HONBLE MR.JUST1cE"A.,S'; 13OI%Ai$I.,EA I
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1854 E20026 -(L:-TTER1Vfg
BETWEEN J ' 3 A Z
SR1 SHANKAR SINGH,
S/O. S11~.T'GI--1,'g _ _ -
AGED "
R/A. DILEEP'NAGAR_, " »
AT HILMAN TOTLA,
D1STR1_cT.KUSHINAOAR'; "
UTTAR PRADEE-_H 274 4;02._ _ . ...APPELLANT
{BY SMT. MANJULA ADV, SR1. V.S. NAIK,
T._THE"1»TANAGEME.NT OF M/S. BHORUKA
' Ng yREPTD,BYITSNUUUKHNGIMRECTOR.
'PE§{T(ILES;_"_vSA1.'I'UR
POST RAYAPEJR,
DISTRICT --*OHARwAD
."RESPONDENT
(BYEVI:/S. Z.N. HANSI & HANSI ASSTS., ADVS.,}
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF'
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TOIXSET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITIQN._ i\I_C).
5367/2006 DATED 29/O8/2006. "
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD K I ..
FOR JUDGEMENT AND iC,QM1Nc;"~»,._0N "FOR "
PRONOUNCEMENT OP' JUDGEMENT *1T~I1S; DAY_SA_B_I~1AHIT
J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: " "
JUDGMEN"r'.__ '-
This appeal is filed by the"t--unsuccessfu_I_: in I
W.P.No,_536'? / 2006 beir1gVaggrieVer;i:'Dy"'the order dated 29-8-
2006 wherein the learned'SingTe::'Juld:ge..Lof..this Court has
declined to interfere by the Labour
Court, per Annexurewd to the
Writ petition Writ petition.
2. Itis-I the case "of:_ll..the appellant herein that he was
. worE§;ingl'as an Assistant Spinning Master on a consolidated
salary .Voi'«.Rs:f22_O1/-- per month as on the date of alleged
tern'--1iinatior_t--._notiee. He had put in 11 years of service as he
-- joined services as Assistant Spinning Master [Production]
,::i'1'omt_ May, 1989 on a monthly consolidated salary of
D n's'.'2';2o1/w and from 1991 Rs.2.345/-- plus Rs.500/-- towards
The appellant was working sincerely and his services
'E
(W
.
, -K
L:
were satisfactory. It is the case of the appellant that
termination notice was issued on 19-4-1991 statinglithlat his
services would be terminated after completgion
months from the date of this notice. _.N–o….iI’f:aso:ns were.»
assigned to the termination andizno chajrge,was’-.frar13.ed1,and 1
no enquiry was held. He wasénot allowed to
Roll of the respondent same day
i.e., on 19-4-1991 ‘ letter by the
respondentlstating that transferred to
Bhiwandi depotggwrigth there were no
spinning’ machines» ‘and “spinning production unit in
Bhiwandi VA:’Being”‘agg.ri_’eved by the same, he raised a
dispute before the”9:.l;aho1__1fir’Court, Hubli in 2:11) No. 27/1992.
Before the ».Lual:’)’o’ur.lV’Court, the workman filed a claim
and tl’1e’ll\/lanagement filed a written statement
is false to allege that termination of the
cl.aima11~t effect from 18-7-1991 is illegal and as per the
Atern1s___ the agreement, respondent can terminate the
‘vseriices of the claimant by giving three months notice
Hlwithout assigning any reason. The claimant was working as
Assistant Spinning Manager and was working in a
supervisory capacity and was not a workman and therefore,
the dispute was not maintainable and termination
services of the claimant is as per the agreemen_t*:entere..’d »
between the claimant and the respondent a3’1.d”I”iCll:SilgHlaVh£1Sif
been attached to the claimant while terminating-.hi’s séjjmces.
Therefore, there is no question«.__of violating ti3’e”pi’vin_cip1es of._*
natural justice and holding of enfqtiiryygwas’unnecessary.
3. Before the Laborir {_?oL1;rt,u”the.’Workman examined
himself as WW.1__and got Q W4. On behalf
of the Manage_men.t’,lt’.yo’–witnesses._were*–examined as M.Ws.1
and 2a_and 1; to M5. The Labour Court,
by order dated that the applicant was a
workman \yithin’vtl”1e.lmeaning of Industrial Disputes Act,
‘l V’ .,1g94~7;’and the dispuvtelyyas maintainable. It further held that
._.teifIIiinatio_nv ofservices of the workman was in accordance
wlithrlthe. of the agreement and clause (10) of the
‘r..,agreemen1t provided that the company may terminate the
of the employee by giving three months notice or
three months notice pay in lieu of notice, without assigning
any reasons even after expiry of this agreement. Therefore, it
was unnecessary to hold any enquiry and
termination is legal and justified. According].yf–
Court dismissed the petition. ._
4. Being aggrieved by the said
Labour Court, the I’fiPI3e1Qiar1£”ixfgriéhiiéiil”* *’;fi1ed=]’
W.P.No.5367/2006 reiteratingp__t:h:e:_’contenfio;1:f,1tién before
the Labour Court. by the
respondent contendingithzit in accordance
with the terms was not a
workman and rightiy dismissed the
petition! Judge after considering the
contentionofappearing for the parties held
that pthepfinding ‘of.7’the- Labour Court is that the applicant
“‘vwpas’e’–a’Workf11an wasjdustified and termination is in terms of
agreement as clause 10 of the said agreement
specificaliydiprovided for termination of the services of the
V’-.emp1oyee_A7~by giving three months notice or three months
in lieu of notice without assigning any reasons and no
stigma has been attached in the order of termination. The
V : 1:’:
Kéw s
if
learned Single Judge also held that the order of transfer has
nothing to do with the order of termination as by
the Labour Court. Accordingly, the learned.–A4″Singlle’budge
declined to interfere with the award
Court. Being aggrieved by the said.&order’lpassed..li1i_lth.é..vviéfit
petition, this writ appeal is
5. We have heard the leallrn..edvV_Vcounselappearing for
the appellant and counsel:’Rappearing for the
respondent. it t 2 V’ ‘V l
6. The for the appellant
submitted it Court has held that
appellant that dispute was maintainable,
notice of clearly show that his services
were, terminated ‘on the ground that his services were not
ll and therefore, charge had to be framed and
held and that clause 10 in the contract of
employment’ services can be terminated by giving three
V’-.,months,rilotice itself is arbitrary and therefore, the notice of
lteerrnitnation is liable to be set aside and the learned Single
K4
K <.;.5.fa%;.
Judge ought to have set aside the award and allowed the
writ petition.
7. The learned counsel for the respondeintvargued’.’_”in*.
support of the order passed by the__Labour it ‘
submitted that the respondent was under
approached the BIFR and’ll__tii.e unit :is. the’
termination is in accordancep_x2sril:h__tl<I.»e se.rv'iceV_AAcorltract and
the appellant has gainfully'empiloyedjvinlGanganagar Textile
Company in Rajasthan.-ii' V l l l
8. l__learnejd_rcouln:-el the appellant has
further suhmititeigl order of transfer which was
also issued_xonsvthehdatewdlofp_termination notice dated 19-4-
1991 would ipclearl§r’:Vsi1oi7v._lthat the order was issued with the
malaflde motivepp and therefore, order of termination ought to
‘- have been set aside.
fha.lve given our careful consideration to the
contentions’ foil learned counsel appearing for the parties and
scrutinised the material on record.
it v 10. The material on record would clearly show that the
appellant was appointed under a contract and Clause 10 of
8
the agreement provided that the Company may terminate the
services of the employee by giving three months notice or
three months notice pay in lieu of notice, without assigning
any reasons even before expiry of the agreement. -fact
that the termination notice was issued on
in dispute. The order of transfer was issued the l
day. The said order of transfer at E;:.W+’3« was
Labour Court to indicate that the same was an’ar1*’a.nge’m’ent”.
within the period of three mo11t.h’s._pof notice .pleriodvV.’lVDu”ring ”
the period of three months notice’, notlcomrnunicated
with any other order of qiasrightly held by
the lthe’>le:arnedlSingle Judge and therefore
termination is in lVlthe..~’contract of employment. The
Labour _V Court has appreciated the documentary
the oral evidence of the appellant
hvasvandmitted the contents of the document and
thatqtlhe were bound by the contract. Hence, the
lgfacts herein are not analogous to the situation in the cited
‘Further, it is not disputed that the respondent’s unit is
not in existence as it was under financial loss and
\J
9
approached the BIFR and the appellant, according to the
material on record, is working in another Spinning Company
at Ganganagar Textiie Company in Rajasthan;».VV_:”-Haiving
regard to the above stated facts of the case}:Mthe~VV.’decision
reiied upon the learned counsel apppearing”fo’r.:th:e”appei§.an’t,
is not helpfui to him in the pre.sent”sQéisee;.. V ‘In”-xfi’e§,fva,,__0f:t}«1e
specific terms of the contract of einpioymevnhtfipand the
that the respondent has unit’, hcégd that the
order passed by jiistified and
does not suffer so as to call
-appeal is dismissed.
sd/4
Judge
sdi~=;
Judge
*sp