Bangalore Turf Club Limited vs The Commissioner for Labour and Others

K.L. Manjunath, J.—The order of the learned Single Judge is called in question in these appeals.

Heard Sri S.S. Nagananda, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Mangalamba Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and also the learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 1.

The writ petitions were filed by the appellant with regard to granting of permission to prosecute the appellant by its workmen under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as under:

"The industrial dispute was raised before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, requesting the Tribunal to direct the Management to reinstate the first party workmen with full backwages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. An award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal holding that the termination of service by the appellant is bad in law. The appellant was directed to reinstate the first party workmen in their original post within one month from the date of publication of the award and further directed the appellant-Management to pay 50% of the backwages as they were getting prior to the termination till their reinstatement and entitled to proportionate consequential benefits. The order of Industrial Tribunal was questioned by the Management in W.P. Nos. 33939/2003 and 33940/2003 which writ petitions came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 28.05.2007 quashing the backwages awarded to the respondents and confirming the order of the award of the Industrial Tribunal."

On the ground that the order of the learned Single Judge was not implemented and consequential benefits were not given to the workmen, they approached the Labour Commissioner requesting the Labour Commissioner to accord permission to prosecute the Secretary of the appellant for violation of the award.

Based on the same, the Labour Department, ordered a show cause notice calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why permission shall not be granted to initiate penal action, for which a detailed reply was sent and thereafter an order was passed by the Labour Commissioner holding that there is violation of the award of the Industrial Tribunal, which has been modified by the High Court and accordingly, permission was accorded to prosecute the appellant-Management before the competent Court.

The permission granted for prosecution was questioned by the appellant-Management. The writ petitions filed by the appellant has been dismissed. Therefore, the present appeals are filed.

Mr. S.S. Nagananda, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contends that the Labour Commissioner has committed an error in according permission to prosecute the appellant without understanding the order passed in the writ petitions. According to him, the award of the Industrial Tribunal was set aside by the learned Single Judge and the same was modified holding that the respondents were not permanent workmen and they were casual labourers. When once the backwages has been set aside, what remains according to him, is only an order of reinstatement and therefore, the permission granted is bad in law. He further contends that the learned Single Judge also did not appreciate the facts properly. Therefore, he requests the Court to allow the appeals and quash the order passed by the Labour Commissioner.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in the W.P. Nos. 33939/2003 and 33940/2003, the learned Single Judge of this Court on 28.05.2007 has only held that the workmen are not entitled for backwages and therefore, the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal in granting 50% of the backwages is set aside and consequential benefits has not been set aside. Therefore, the Labour Commissioner is justified in according permission to prosecute the appellant. In the circumstances, she requests the Court to dismiss the writ appeals.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point to be considered by us is:

"Whether the learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the writ petitions?"

The facts are not in dispute to the following extent:

"On account of the termination of the service made by the appellant, the respondents had raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the termination is bad in law and ordered for reinstatement with 50% backwages and consequential benefits. While answering Point No. 1 the Industrial Tribunal also held that the respondents are permanent workmen."

The award of the Labour Commissioner was challenged before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge in the operative portion of the order has only held that the awarding of backwages of 50% has been set aside. While disposing of the writ petitions in the course of discussion, the learned Single Judge has also come to the conclusion that the workmen were carrying on the work as a seasonal employees but the question is that the learned Single Judge has not given a finding in regard to the status of workmen.

If there is an order for reinstatement without backwages, it is for the Labour Commissioner to give a finding whether the status of the respondents is seasonal casual labourer or permanent workman. Such a finding has not been given by the Labour Commissioner.

Therefore, we are of the view that an error is committed by the learned Single Judge in not considering the crucial aspect. According to us, the matter has to be reconsidered by the Labour Commissioner in regard to the status of the workmen and thereafter consider the case of the respondents for according permission to prosecute the appellant.

With the above observations, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the order passed by the Labour Commissioner is also set aside. Accordingly, the writ appeals are allowed. The matter is remanded to the Labour Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with law.