Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1808
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G.NARENDAR, J.
SRI K.P. BHEEMAIAH – Appellant
Vs.
BHARATH ELECTRONICS LIMITED - RESPONDENT
WRIT PETITION NOS.55121-55122/2015, WRIT PETITION NOS.18832/2015, IN W.P.NOS.55121-55122/2015
Decided On : 11-10-2019
FOR THE APPELLANT : SRI M VEERABHADRAIAH,
FOR THE RESPONDENT: ISMAIL M.MUSBA
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 33(2)(b), 2A and 15A - Indian Penal Code - Section 307 -Relief sought for in the writ petition is for quashing the order - Attempt to murder - Whether he admits the charges - Whether acknowledgement issued is genuine or not - Whether 12 other witnesses were reluctant to depose is flabbergasting - Whether it is open to authority - Whether a duty arises in a particular case to issue a show-cause notice - whether it is pleadings - Whether the person is seeking remedy - Whether the matter relates to a dispute having a public law element or violation of any fundamental right or to any arbitrary and highhanded action - Petitioner that he joined the services of the employer as a clerk-cum-typist later in was promoted as an Accountant - Petitioner was deeply involved in the activities of the Union - Unions vide notice issued a strike notice under Section 22(1)(B) ovarious Unions of BEL, joined hands to form a United Action Front and issued the strike notice to strike work in order to press for consideration of charter of demands - Copy of strike notice is produced as Annexure-K. In response, the BEL Officers Association made an appeal to workman to ignore strike notice and to attend duty, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-K1 - United Action Front in response made an appeal to the workman to participate in the strike and ensure its success and not to fall prey to the tactics being adopted by management – Held, Writ petitioner makes out a case for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, High Court would not relegate him to the alternative remedy of a civil court, merely because matter may involve an incidental examination of disputed questions of facts - Question that will ultimately weigh with High Court is this: whether person is seeking remedy in a matter which is primarily a civil dispute to be decided by a civil court, or whether matter relates to a dispute having a public law element or violation of any fundamental right or to any arbitrary and highhanded action - Court on issue of maintainability and the conclusions drawn by the Court based on the records made available by parties during the hearing. Hence, other contentions are not adjudicated in order are left open. The application for impleading preferred by respondent to bring on record the deponent in the does not merit consideration as the said persons are neither necessary nor proper parties to proceedings - Writ petition being allowed in part
ORDER:
1. Having heard the counsels for both the parties, this court passes the following order. Both the writ petitions are heard together for disposal in view of the order dated 09.03.2016. By the said order both the petitions are directed to be listed together for consideration.
2. In both the writ petitions, the petitioner is the workman and the respondent is the employer.
3. In the first writ petition the petitioner is calling in question the order dated 17.06.2014 passed by the Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. BEL Bangalore (Annexure-A), under which order the Chairman invoking the authority vested in him under Section 15A of the Certified Standing Orders of the Bangalore Complex, was pleased to dispense with the ongoing enquiry and was further pleased to order dismissal of the petitioner with immediate effect.
4. The other relief sought for in the writ petition is for quashing the order titled as Final Order dated 18.06.2014 passed by the General Manager, pursuant to the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 16.06.2014.
5. The enquiry came to be prematurely closed by the enquiry officer on the premise that it is not conducive to continue the enquiry as the Presenting Officer had submitted that he is unable to produce the Management Witnesses in view of the incident dated 08.06.2014 during which incident it is alleged that the petitioner had assaulted a security supervisor one Uthappa.B.K. and had threatened him not to support the management. Hence, by the final order the General Manager once again passed an order dismissing the petitioner from the services of the company with immediate effect and enclosing a cheque for the sum of Rs.40,920/- being one month’s wage and also intimating the filing of the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’).
6. The second writ petition is preferred by the workman calling in question the orders of the CGIT & Labour Court in FR No.26/2014, whereby the CGIT & LC was pleased to uphold the office objections raised on the maintainability of the application preferred by the workman under subsections (2) & (3) of Section 2A of the Act. By the order impugned, the CGIT & LC has opined that the application under Section 2A of the Act read with sub-sections (2) and (3) is premature in the light of the fact that the approval application preferred by the respondent-employer is still pending consideration and has opined that the papers be returned to the petitioner-workman. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court in the second writ petition.
7. The petitioner is referred to as the workman and the respondent is referred to as the employer for the sake of convenience and brevity.
Facts of the Case:
8. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the services of the employer as a clerk-cum-typist in the year 1995. That later in the year 2010, he was promoted as an Accountant. That the petitioner was deeply involved in the activities of the Union. That the Unions vide notice dated 25.11.2013 issued a strike notice under Section 22(1)(B) of the Act. That all the various Unions of BEL, joined hands to form a United Action Front and issued the strike notice to strike work on 11.12.2013 in order to press for the consideration of their charter of demands. A copy of the strike notice is produced as Annexure-K. In response, the BEL Officers Association made an appeal to the workman to ignore the strike notice and to attend duty, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-K1. That on 10.12.2013, the United Action Front in response made an appeal to the workman to participate in the strike and ensure its success and not to fall prey to the tactics being adopted by the management, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-L.
9. That on the night of 10.12.2013, that is the night preceding the strike day, the office bearers and active members of the various unions had assembled at the grievance office on the BEL Estate to d
