BETWEEN 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 30" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010]'-«..OT_E'~AEv PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.3uSTIc:E AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JuSTi cuTE-.EB.v."NAG.ARATHA?§IA.,E REVIEW PETITION NG0:fj3.77VV_OF 1.2.003 WRIT AP"RE~AL_ Ng.g2I3']'2OOb8 M SR1 S.:,.. v:EBKATARAi:»¢A'IAH-- S/Q_.T__,SRI..VLAr<.;:<_A£u!\lA,_" * AG EO ABQUT 55 YEARS, I RIESIDING'ATV-N'O._2'lQ;-----., I A 2"'D'--STAGE, }I_NG;"AT NO.1S6, 3" MAIN, A , 2N9 _PHTA_SE, MANJUNATHNAGAR, RMAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 010 T"SRI v.S. SHANKARE GOWDA "S/O. SRI. SHIVANNA GOWDA AGEO ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT No.2, 1" CROSS, woc ROAO, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE 560 021 2 SRI CHANDRASEKHARAIAH S/O. SRI BASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 1271, COCONUT GARDEN PEENYA DASARAHALLI BANGALORE 560 057 SRI BETTAIAH S/O. SRI REVAIAH AGEO ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 378, 8" MAIN, MILK COLONY MALLESWARAM WEST BANGALORE 560 055 SRI K. MANJUNATHA S/O. SRI s<.v. KES.HAVAR,A3"U'T AGEO ABOUT 45 YEARS ; " RESIDING AT No.51, ' BEHIND RAJESWARL , ' EN'G1NEE..RfING1wORKS 1 RA3_ESUHwA'R:A*'NAGA'R,, T. A LAGGERE, REENYA R. BANGALORE '3f6<3;05,8"_;. SR1 RU*'rTA'R'AMA.1AH ~ _ JjAGE.UO ABOUT '5~5------YEARS, RESIEDING AT NO.124, 3*" CROSS .a;A..YO--UT "7'._Es'!A'RA'NAHAL'LI VIJAYANAGAR ""BAN'GA:;ORE 560 040 f,,_SRrO.SUBBANNA _ 'S/O ARI DODDANNA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. :20, 1:7" CROSS 2"" MAIN ROAD, GAYATHRI NAGAR, SRIRAMPURAM POST 10. 11. _ "5,/O,SR1~S'1'OOAIAH .__AGEDW.ABQ'UT 54 YEARS BANGALORE 560 021 SRI B.M. NAGARAJA S/O SR1 MUDAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 553-5 339 STAGE, rv BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR SRIRAMPURAM POST BANGALORE 560 021 SR1 B. JAYARAM S/O SRI BOMMANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS7 RESIDING AT NO. 226, MUNIBYRAPPA COMPOUNBR: _ SUBRAMANYANAGAR S RI RAM PU RAM POST," BANGALORE 560 021 T' .5 SR1 G. SE€.VET:|fiA_RAr;:¢i S/'O SR1 ..ég.ORA3&;A i§JA1fOLJ AG_ED_ ABVOL.-TY»59 YEARYS ' - RESIDING AT=Af_:'O_.' 1.59.7/~1, NAGAPPA VBLOCK, »-- V SR1RAM~RU'R.AM " _}'3ANGALOnRE,,56O Q21 SROITH.B}-RAMAKRISHNA RES_IOIi\:G AT NO. 25, ""'~54T"v--1.'cRO'SS, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE 560 010 .V A SR1 R. NAGARAJ S/O SRI. RANGAPPA AGEO ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.221, 1 MAIN ROAD, 2"" PHASE, MANJUNATHANAGAR, RAJAHNAGAR, BANGALORE - 10 14. SR1 K. SATHYANARAYANA S/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 2348, 2"" STAGE, RAIAIINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 010 (BY SR1 SUBBA RAO., SENIOR COuN'SEL'«:=.OR., ., 1 M/S. SUBBA RAO & CO., ADVS.,) I AND THE MANAGEMENT OF GKW LTDY, SANKEY ELECTRICAL STAMPING . .. DIVISION, DR. RAJsRA'YI,;a:AG'EOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 27~08~ 2'00'B...PA'SS'EY.D 'I§N""'wA No.213/2008, ON THE FILE OF THE V . HON'BLE<HIGI§ COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE. w. 'ifHIS RP COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ..jjSA§3HAHIT J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-- % ORDER
This review petition is filed for review of the order
passed by this Court dated 27.08.2008, whegreilénilgliviritV3
Appeal No.2}.3/2008 was dismissed holding that”.t:her_e: u
no merit in the appeal and there was lnoreas-on.;t0lVi’nterfer’e
with the order passed by the ggiearnaed single
20.11.2007 in WP. No.17038/2’0e0i6<.. V.
2. The above said order’-..da–ted 2’7;08′.20_08 has
been passed after hearir’:g:i”t_he.gcitiuvnlsei»appearing for the
parties. {ThispAetitioVn7for«review has been filed under Order
xxxxvu siuié 1 read’ilwitnsiectlion :51 of CPC., contending
that _ordie.- 27.08.2008 suffers from error
appaV.r’entE”‘o’i: face the order and the same is required
to is contended that the settlement dated
0 _O9.0″?««,.20(_J’5 not binding upon the appeilants – review
V”‘”–..petitig0ner’s:herein as the same had not been signed by
,th.e’rn– Sri Muralicihar, Advocate who has signed the
settlement as the Secretary of the Workers’ Union
” ” was also appearing for the appellants – review petitioners
up
6
herein before the Labour Court. Therefore, the settlement
entered into by Sri Muralidhar as the Secretary of the
Workers’ union wouid not be binding and in view oftthe
provisions of Rule 59(3) of the Industriai
(Karnataka) Rules, 1957, settlement ought K V’
signed by the individuai workman.
3. We have heard the Eeiarniectsenior,’Vcousni’sei7f
appearing for the review petiVtio”r.eV_rs h’erein,_viiho’:._;a”re.. the
appeiiants in the appeal and..wV:g”‘i.trieg’ learned Hvdounsei
appearing for the respondent,”–‘iyEi–o«iirespondent in the
writ appeal.-_* V .,
4. = The l’earn:e»d “s.e_nio~~r counsel appearing for the
review. -petitiotners ‘vehernenhtly argued that the order dated
;.nf’gV”;7,orei;2oip8 ‘passed””En”W.A. No.213/2008 dismissing the
‘a.ppeaV|’ sis::’etr%roVne_o’_Lis and suffers from an error apparent on
theiface order as the Court failed to note that
i3″=-‘«.___VMuaralidhVa1r was not authorized to sign the settfement
dated.f:O9.07.2OOS and the order passed by the learned
Judge was not justified having regard to the
twig;
if
provisions of Rule 59 of the Industrial Disputes
(Karnataka) Ruies, 3.957. which stipulates that where a
settéement pertains to a workman whose dispute”-,is
pending before the Labour Court, the settiement
signed by the individual workman. The |eari’:edCf_s’enior’
counsei further submitted that theM”revie_w~«,_pe’ti.ti_on_e.rs’:3-
appeiiants stood on a different footingw.fro–m other
as they were subjected to ma’i’ic:i’o-.13 pro*sect:ti.on”:.;b’yV’ the
respondent by initiatinggficriminnall”p’roceedingsy”and they
were dismissed from serviicel’an:d’V th_e’.ff.’§;a’n_1e had been
chaléenged befg;i”c–:A.ut_he izftaboo-‘r ‘«Co’Lijrt,V_.___wh’ich dispute is
pendingifiarid*wheV:.’efo’re,'”they ought to have been given
additionai benefiVts°u_n’d:ei= thesettlement, having regard to
__the separate of: the review petitioners herein —
.”~._appe.ii’:ants.:..
_.”4.__’i”»h’e~t.:”tiearned counsei appearing for the
respo_ndent.submitted that the respondent –~ Company had
‘VV.”~’.”””VfS.’I,ed a detailed rehabilitation scheme before the Board for
and Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R) and the
and the settlements entered into between the
(CE:
ii
8
respondent and the Workers’ union had been approved by
the B.I.F.R. The settlement dated 09.07.2005
entered into between the respondent and Worke–rs”‘”u’~n.ipon,*i._._'” _
wherein Muraiidhar, the counsel,M,Vappea.ri’ng*~i:’_f0’r”~:Vtheru
workmen before the Labour Co’urt,;”‘i1i3s«’=.si§ined”V:”‘eh<§:i:fA
settienient as the Secretaryi'of–..the lwolrizersfliuiriieri,Jtod
which the review petitioners – ap_pe!,i:an.ts are and
even though, the reviewypetitwioriers'*–h'acl:'been dismissed
from service, they-.are trea'tedjAori~ workmen in
service and the persons in
service V:'_::iV:fhe:é'ei"ore, care has been
taken to'1.iproteActV00tVhe: the review petitioners aiso.
The settiernent iVsV"si.§'iiedV:'bgr4proper persons representing
___the Wprkers' iinion andithe settiement was not in respect
_Vi'nd%iv4iA'duai workman, but, in respect of 217
»veri€rnen;* of the scheme approved by the BIFR.,
V the Court was justified in holding that the review
Mu"0'~44"'xpetiti.io_n'ers herein are bound by the settiement dated
'.'_'i&~09i..:G'?."2005 and the iearned single Judge was also justified
0 'hoiding that the said settiement is binding upon the writ
0. petitioners (review petitioners herein). This Court has
0 Kg’)?
9
also rightly held in writ appeal that the appellants (review
petitioners herein) are bound by the settlement dated
09.07.2005. The learned counsel further submittedtiaat
no ground whatever is made out for review of
dated 27.08.2008, wherein all the contentions”tihatffwnere
urged before this Court have beeng’Jc22on’_s§der’egd
has been disposed of on merits». _
6. We have given cai*e:f’u! cons–ide’ra_t’E:on’:.:to the
contentions of the leatned .co’uris’e!Vj”appearin’g”for the
parties and scrutinized the h’iVateri’a’l o.n_22Vr”ef§:o22rd.
_TAh’§7mVateriai«.on.__record would clearly show that
the quest’i’o,n,’ which by the Labour Court and
the learnyed .slngV_le’13u’dge in the writ petition —- W.P.
andlmin the appeal filed by the review
‘hp-eltsltiorjersls.heVre:fi~~ in W.A. No.213/2008 is as to whether
2 _ the “sett|,.__emerlt dated 09.07.2003 was binding upon the
:Worl<r2'aerlV.–li)efore the Labour Court, who are petitioners in
.._«ti*iVe'»wr:it petition and appellants in the writ appeal. In
View of the fact that the settlement dated 09.07.2005,
10
which was signed by the representatives of the workers’
union had been approved by the BIFR., and the fact that
seven review petitioners, viz., petitioner l\los.3, 6, 8, 9′,’:’iQ,
11 and 14 had already accepted the benefits
setttement, the learned single held
petitioners are bound by the settlen]:ent::dgate’dgg
This Court, after considering Val|_the Ac-ontentioggnisl..ta’ised”}at’i V
the time of hearing of the writ 1éi’ip..Vp_’eal_ onli27;03;20t)s,ViV has
passed the order holvdjihg thelnsettlemventyy dated
09.07.2005 was signed byfrepre’se’rita.tives of the
workers’ Union.’lA};fFherefore’,.”‘:’0’rd.e.r.V.7passed by the
Labour single Judge holding that the
settlement “dated binding upon the review
…y’i3etiti,o.ii:j’ers~ herei’n’ivV;§u9l3:lfied and no ground was made out
‘7._for:i«nterfVering:wcith the order passed by the learned single
order passed by the Labour Court.
A .~ ~I_t’;is well settled that the scope of review under
T7-‘«.___VO.rder XXXVII CPC., is limited to correct the errors
g”ap_pvagre”i”it on the face of the””order and it is not meant to
out as to whether the order is erroneous, after
W”
11
permitting the parties to reargue the appeal again as any
finding given on merits, which is erroneous has..’to:’-~..l_j’e_
challenged in accordance with law and not inyla
petition. Also, no appeal can be _fil.ed_in
review petition. Having regard to the atlovye said
hold that all the contentions thlatwgere raised_at.::the”ti.me3 of
hearing on 27.08.2003.haveAg,..pVee.n’w~.,conside.ted’by the
Division Bench of merit in the
contention of th4e”revie:w”‘ Muralidhar,
Secretary of All l-:metlggl umancgngregs (A.I.T.U.C),
(Karnatal_<a_ not authorized to
represent settlement as apart from Sri
Muralidhar,"~-tg__4£5riv wfinaéntha Subba Rao, General
Secrei§:arycr,. A.I.'i.tf.:C., 'l;Karnataka State Committee) has
a'lso..sign:'eVd_the-,s'ett|ement dated 09.07.2005, which fact is
nctAV"l.-dlisp'ujted_.'~l;;."'V;l'herefore, it is clear that the said
.q conte"ntioVn. ofgthe review petitioners would not in any way
u the order passed by this Court in WA. No.213/2008
.'gig'_.d"ate'diA' 27.08.2008 reiterating the finding of the Labour
0 "Court and the learned single Judge that the settlement
0' dated 09.07.2005 is binding upon the appellants (review
6'
1»-"'-~
J
1-',
12
petitioners herein). Accordingiy, we hoid that there is.___no
merit in this review petition and pass the foiiowing
The review petition is dismissedm
sazmai ”