1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016 B E F O R E THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION Nos.41457-41458/2016 AND WRIT PETITION Nos.42774-42796/2016 (L-RES) BETWEEN: M/s. NEEDS MANPOWER SUPPORT SERVICES PVT. LTD., NO.25, NEEDS TOWERS, 4TH FLOOR, SBM COLONY, 80 FEET ROAD, BANASHANKARI 1 ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560 050 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI P.S. RAJGOPAL, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI AJAY J.N., ADV.) AND: 1. Mr. SANTHOSH C/O. Mr. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 4TH CROSS, D CROSS, SHAHJAHAN NAGAR, DODDABALLAPUR, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203. 2. Mr. MAHESH GOWDA D.H., S/O Mr. DANANA GOWDA H., AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 2 AMARKOLA VILLAGE, HOLE ADAGELI, RONA TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT – 582 103. 3. Mr. PRASANNA KUMAR K., S/O. Mr. KEMPANNA B., AGED ABOUT 23 YELARS JATHUVARA VILLAGE POST CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 561208. 4. Mr. KALANDAR KHAN S/O Mr. DILSHA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS NO.12, RAMAPATTANA POST – 562 101 CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. 5. Mr. CHENNA GOWDA B.H., S/O. Mr. HANUMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS BACCHEHALLI VILLAGE, ANTHRAHALLI POST, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203. 6. Mr. KESHAVA MURTHY C.M., S/O Mr. MUNIRAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS CHIKKA TUMKUR, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, VEERAPURA POST, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 203. 7. Mr. RAGHU N., S/O Mr. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, VINAYAK NAGAR, BASHETTYHALLI POST, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT – 561 203. 3 8. Mr. PRABHAKARA M., C/O Mr. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S.NO.1/1, SITE NO.26, VINAYANAGAR, BASHETTYHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203. 9. Mr. SHIVARAJU M., S/O Mr. MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, NO.50, LINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT – 561 203. 10. Mr. BIYAS PRASAD S/O Mr. GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, NO.52, MAJARA HOSAHALLI VEERAPURA POST, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203. 11. Mr. RAMESH KUMAR M., S/O Mr. MUNITHIPPANNA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, NO.1602, 10 TH CROSS, VEERABHADRANAPALYA, THALABARAHATTI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203. 12. Mr. ANIL KUMAR C/O Mr. SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, NEAR NIKHILA SCHOOL, VEERAPURA POST, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203. 13. Mr. BALIRAM CHOWDHARI S/O Mr. T.P.NARAYANASWAMY, 4 AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, ROOM NO.3, BASHETTYHALLI, VIJAYNAGAR, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203. 14. Mr. NAVEEN KUMAR T.N., S/O Mr. NEELAKANTACHAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS THINDLU VILLAGE JALIGE POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110. 15. Mr. RAMANJINAPPA S/O Mr. MUNIVENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS HASSANAGHATTA MALLATHA HALLI POST DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203. 16. Mr. MANJUNATHAIH S/O Mr. SANJEEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS BEDATTUR VILLAGE MEEDAGESI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 132. 17. Mr. KUMAR M., S/O Mr. MUNISHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS BYRASANDRA VILLAGE ARALUMALLIGE POST DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BANGALORE RURAL TALUK – 561 203. 18. Mr. BIR BAHADUR RAI S/O Mr. RAMEV RAI C/O ANITHA, D/O MUNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS MAJARA HOSAHALLI 5 VEERAPURA PO DODDABALLAPUR TALUK – 561 203. 19. Mr. HARISHANKAR T.G., S/O GOVINDRAJU AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS TINDLU VILLAGE JALIGE POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 560 050. 20. Mr. RAJANNA C., S/O. CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS DODDA MANKULALA VILLAGE KOLLEGERE POST DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203. 21. Mr. ASHOK N.K. S/O NARAYANA ANCHAL P.N. AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS NO.13, "GOVINDA NILAYA", 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS R.R.M.R. EXTENSION BANGALORE - 560 027. 22. Mr. SANTHOSH P.N. S/O. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS KURUVIGERE, GANTIGANAHALLI POST DODDABALLAPUR TLAUK BANGALORE DISTRICT – 561 203. 23. Mr. MANJUNATH S., S/O SOMASHEKARAPPA P.N., AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, C/O B.T. RAMANJUNAPPA BASETTYHALLI (BEHIND GOVT. MODED PRIMARY SCHOOL) DODDABALLAPUR – 561 203. 6 24. Mr. RAMESH A., S/O ADAVEESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, BYRASANDRA, HARALURU POST TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 132. 25. Mr. RAJESH R. ACHARI S/O RAMESH ACHARI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, CHANDAVARA VILLAGE, HONNAVARA TALUK, KARWARA DISTRICT – 573 110 NORTH KARNATAKA. 26. THE MANAGEMENT OF AJAX FIORI ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.3, 16 & 17, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, BASHETTIHALLI, DODDABALLAPUR-561 203 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE Mr. GANAPATI N.S. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S. ANANTHARAM, ADV. FOR R1 to R25; SRI ADITYA NARAYAN, ADV. FOR R26) THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 21.07.2016 OF THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE DATED IN I.D.NO.71/2012 CONNECTED WITH I.D.Nos.72-87/2012 AND I.D.NO.101/2012 (ANNEXURE-A) AND IDENTICAL ORDER PASSED ON 21.07.2016 IN I.D.NO.89/2012 CONNECTED WITH I.D.Nos.90/2012 TO 95/2012 (ANNEXURE-B) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES OF RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 25 BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT WITHOUT ANY LIMITATION. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 7 ORDER The respondent Nos.1 to 25 having filed the Applications, under S.10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the petitioner and the respondent No.26, Common Awards dated 30.01.2015 and 03.02.2015 was passed by the Presiding Officer, Prl. Labour Court, Bengaluru. Assailing the said awards, Writ Petition Nos.17369-373/2015 and connected cases having been filed, by reason of a common Order dated 30.07.2015 vide Annexure - F, the impugned awards were quashed and the case was remitted to the Labour Court. In the course of cross-examination of the witnesses produced on behalf of the workmen, a Memo dated 15.07.2016 vide Annexure-G having been filed by the Workmen/First Party, despite statement of objections dated 19.07.2016 vide Annexure–H filed, the Labour Court having passed the order dated 21.07.2016 vide Annexure – A, holding that M/s. Needs Manpower Support Services Pvt., Ltd., impleaded as Second Party No.2 i.e., the petitioner herein shall restrict its cross-examination only in respect of the 8 plea taken by the workmen against it and further having held that the Second Party No.2 has no right to cross- examine the witnesses to the full extent, feeling aggrieved, these writ petitions were filed. 2. Sri P.S.Rajgopal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is arbitrary and is also against the order of remand passed vide Annexure -F. He submitted that the workmen having stated that the second party No.2 is a necessary party for adjudicating the dispute and having alleged that the second party No.2 is a sham and camouflage party created by the second party No.1 and the scope of evidence having not been circumscribed in the order passed vide Annexure-F, Labour Court has committed illegality in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to cross-examine the witnesses of the workmen to the full extent of the case. Learned counsel further submitted that the restriction placed in the impugned order would come in the way of truth being elicited and the case of the 9 petitioner being established. Learned Senior Advocate contended that the impugned order is arbitrary and if not quashed would result in frustration of the opportunity granted in the order as at Annexure - F. 3. Sri T.S.Anantharam, learned advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 25, on the other hand submitted that in view of the unending process of cross- examination adopted by the opposite parties in the Labour Court and as the workmen have been kept out of employment and are facing severe hardship, the memo vide Annexure - G was filed. Learned counsel submitted that 6 months’ period specified in order as at Annexure - F having expired and as the case has not come to an end, out of frustration, the Memo vide Annexure - G was filed. Alternatively, learned counsel submitted that if the impugned order is quashed, Labour Court be directed to decide the case within the period fixed as per the order passed on 29.07.2016. 10 4. Perused the record and considered the rival contentions. Point for consideration is “whether the impugned order is arbitrary and liable to be quashed?” 5. The awards passed in favour of the workmen were assailed by the respondent No.26 herein, in W.P. Nos.17369-373/2015 and connected cases. Upon hearing of the parties and by reason of the common order as at Annexure - F, it was held that the oral and documentary evidence brought on record is not adequate to hold that the workmen are the direct employees of the writ petitioner and that the evidence on record is not supportive of the finding recorded by the Labour Court that M/s.Needs Manpower Support Services Pvt., Ltd., is only a dummy organization and a name lender to the management of Ajax Fiori Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. In view of the finding entered, the impugned awards were quashed and the workmen was granted opportunity to produce cogent and satisfactory evidence in support of their claims that they were directly appointed by the 11 management of Ajax Fiori Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. and that they were removed from service by the said establishment. It was observed that if the Labour Court delivers a finding that the workmen are indeed appointed by M/s.Needs Manpower Support Services Pvt.