In the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26 th DAY OF AUGUST 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA WRIT PETITION Nos.24812-24813 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION Nos.25033 TO 25053 OF 2009(L-RES) BETWEEN COTTON CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., A WHOLLY OWNED GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING, UNDER THE MINISTRY OF TEXTILES HAVING THEIR HEAD OFFICE AT KAPAS BHAVAN PLOT NO.3-A, SECTOR 10, CBD BELAPUR NAVI MUMBAI 400 614, AND INTER ALIA A BRANCH OFFICE AT W B PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI 580 029, REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER MOHIT SHARMA ... PETITIONER (By Sri S G KADADAKATTI, ADV ) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS ADD SECRETARY LABOUR DEPT. VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 2. M/S COTTON CORPORATION OF INDIA UNION SHRAMIK BHAVAN, MARKET YARD APMC YARD AMARGOL HUBLI REP BY ITS PRESIDENT 3. HUSSAINSAB, S/O.RAJASAB ANDALAGI 4. RUDRAPPA, S/O.GURUSIDDAPPA MYKARA 5. BHEEMAPPA, S/O.SIDDALINGAPPA MARADAGI 2 6. MAHADEVAPPA, S/O.ERAPPA HEBBALI 7. LAKSHMANA, S/O.BHEMAPPA JALAGAR 8. MADIVALAPPA, S/O.BASAPPA MORABAD 9. PAKKIRAPPA, S/O.HANUMANTHAPPA MADOLI 10. SHIVALINGAPPA, S/O.HANUMANTHAPPA MADOLI 11. SHIVAPUTHRAPPA S/O RAMAPPA SHISHANAHALLI 12. SIDDAPPA, S/O.KARIYAPPA SIGUNSHI 13. CHANNAPPAGOUDA, S/O.RUDRAGOUDA PATIL SINCE DEAD. BY HIS L.Rs. RAJESAB, S/O.IMAMSAB LANGOTI SINCE DEAD BY HIS. L.Rs. 14(A) MRS. SHENAZBANU W/O MEHABOOBSAB MULLA AGE 26 YRS., OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O UNKAL, HUBLI. 14(B) MR. IMAMSAB S/O RAJASAB LANGOTI, AGE 24 YRS., OCC: PLUMBER, R/O UNKAL, HUBLI. 14© MS. RUKKAIYA, D/O RAJESAB LANGOTI AGE 20 YRS., OCC: NIL, R/O UNKAL, HUBLI 15 MOULASAB, S/O IMAMSAB LANGOTI 16. MAHADEVAPPA, S/O.BASAPPA YAGGANNAVAR BASAVENNAPPA, S/O.SHETTEYAPPA TIRLAPUR SINCE DEAD BY L.RS 17(A) MRS. SHOBHA W/O BASAVANNEPPA TIRLAPUR AGE 29 YRS., OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O KURUBAR ONI, SAI NAGAR, UNKAL, HUBLI. 17(B) MR. ARUN, S/0 BASAVANNEPPA TIRLAPUR AGE 6 YRS, STUDENT, R/O KURUBAR ONI, SAI NAGAR, UNKAL, HUBLI. 17(C) MR. ABHISHEK, S/O BASAVANNEPPA TIRLAPUR 3 AGE 4 YEARS, R/O KURUBAR ONI SAI NAGAR, UNKAL, HUBLI. R17(B) AND (C) SINCE MINORS REP. BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MRS. SHOBHA W/O BASAVARAJ TIRLAPUR, AGE 29 YRS., OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O KURUBAR ONI, SAI NAGAR, UNKAL , HUBLI. 18. MADIVALAPPA MAHADEVAPPA HEBBALI 19. BHIMAPPA, S/O.SHIVAPPA MUDUGURI 20.MALLIKARJUN, S/O.REVANSIDDAPPA WAGGAR 21 CHANDRASHEKAR S/O SHIVAPUTRAPPA SHISHANAHALLI 22. SHEKAPPA, S/O.SIDDAPPA AKKI 23. IMAMSAB, S/O.KALESAB GARAGAD BASAVARAJ S/O SHIVAPPA KALASAGOUDAR SINCE DEAD. BY HIS L.RS. 24(A) MRS. HEMA W/O BASAVARAJ KALASAGOUDAR AGE 45 YRS., OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O NO.64 SANGOLLI, RAYANNA NAGAR, DHARWAD. 24(B) MR. UMESH, S/O BASAVARAJ KALASAGOUDAR AGE 27 YRS., OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O NO.64, SANGOLLI RAYANNA NAGAR, DHARWAD. 24(C) MS. ARATI, D/O BASAVARAJ KALASGOUDAR AGE 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O NO.64 SANGOLLI RAYANNA NAGAR, DHARWAD. ALL ARE MAJORS, R/O HUBLI AND REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE UNION CCI HAMALAR SANGHA SHRAMIK BHAVAN, APMC YARD, AMARAGOL HUBLI 580 025. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri RAVI V. HOSAMANI, AGA FOR R1, SRI DEEPAK SHETTY, ADV. FOR R2, R3 AND R5 SRI SURESH HUDEDAGADDI, ADV. FOR R3 TO R16, R17(A- 4 C), R-18-23, R24(A-C) SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3 SRI S.S. PATIL, ADV. FOR R3 AND R5 R-14 (A&B) SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT) THESE PETITIONs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF REFERENCE DT. 8.6.09 VIDE ANX-C PASSED IN PROCEEDINGS NO. KE-594/IDG/2009, BY THE R1, ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, GOVT, OF KARNATAKA, LABOUR DEPARTMENT AND FURTHER QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN ID NO. 330/2009, ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR COURT, HUBLI, AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER In these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order of reference dated 08.06.2009 passed by the first respondent vide Annexure ‘C’ and has prayed to quash the proceedings in ID No.330/2009 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli. 2. Briefly stated the facts are: The petitioner-Corporation is a Government of India undertaking under the Ministry of Textiles. It is engaged in the business of procurement and marketing of raw processed Cotton to spinning Mills including National 5 Textiles and other users. The respondents 3 to 24 are engaged in the work of loading and unloading in the APMC yard, Hubli. They are licenced loaders. It is stated, the second respondent on behalf of the respondents 3 to 24 falsely claiming that the respondents 3 to 24 are employees of the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming that they are entitled for regularization of service, payment of risk allowances, grant of holidays. They also claimed daily allowances between Rs.20 and Rs.30 for workers working outside godowns. Further, they claimed for the workers who have worked for 10 years new conditions of service. The first respondent by order dated 08.06.2009 has referred the matter as industrial dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. It is stated, the petitioner purchases cotton from APMC Yard at Hubli through commission agents. After acceptance of tenders, the concerned commission agent deliver the raw cotton to the ginning and pressing factories named by the petitioners. The commission agents get the 6 raw cotton loaded on to trucks or tractors as the case may be through hamals/loaders for transportation to crushing and ginning factories. The porters/hamals are not directly engaged by the petitioners. But, the commission agents get the work done through licenced porters/hamals. The charges of loading raw cotton along with transportation charges are added to the purchase bill by the commission agents. The hamals are not engaged by the petitioner- corporation. Therefore, there is no relationship of master and servant or employer and employee between the petitioner-Corporation and the respondents 3 to 24. 4. It is stated, the respondents 3 to 24 had filed application in MWA/CR No.2/2006 for a direction to pay minimum wages. The petitioner contended that respondents 3 to 24 are not employees of the petitioner and there is no relationship of employer and employee between them. Though sufficient evidence was produced by the petitioner, the Labour Officer and Minimum Wages Authority held that the respondents 3 to 24 are employees of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.52,14, 961.93. 7 5. The petitioner challenged the said order in W.P. No.11656/2007. This Court by its order dated 03.08.2007 stayed the operation of the order dated 31.5.2007. Subsequently, the writ petition came to be allowed and the order passed by the Labour Officer and Minimum Wages Authority came to be set aside holding that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 24. 6. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the reference order dated 08.06.2009 and proceedings in I.D. No.330/2009 on the file of Industrial Tribunal, Hubli. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of reference dated 08.06.2009 and the proceedings in ID No.330/2009 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, cannot be sustained in law. Further, he submitted that the respondents 3 to 24 have claimed regularization of service and other benefits based on the order passed by the Labour Officer and Minimum Wages Authority in application No. MWA/CR No.2/2006. Based on 8 that, the reference has been made. This Court in W.P. No.11656/2007 has set aside the order passed by the Labour Officer and Minimum Wages Authority in MWA/CR No.2/2006 holding that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 24. Therefore, the reference is bad in law. The order passed in W.P. No.11656/2007 has become final. Therefore, the impugned order of reference and the proceedings in I.D. No.330/2009 on the file of Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, may be quashed. He has produced xerox copy of the order passed in W.P. No.11656/2007. 8. The learned Government Advocate also submitted that in view of the order passed in W.P No.11656/2007, the reference cannot be sustained in law. 9. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents 3 to 24. 10. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Advocate. 9 11. The point that arises for my consideration is: Whether the impugned order of reference and the proceedings in ID No.330/2009 call for interference? 12. It is relevant to note, the respondents 3 to 24 claim that they are the employees of the petitioner- Corporation. They have made a representation claiming that they are entitled for regularization of service and other benefits. By order dated 08.06.2009 reference has been made under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act. Pursuant to that, the proceedings have been initiated in I.D.