LexMANAGEMENT OF M/S. MYSORE STRUCTURALS LTD. AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- <... MANAGEMENT OF MIS. MYSORE STRUCTURALS LTD. AND ORS. A v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. OCTOBER 30, 2001 [D.P. MOHAPATRA AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] Labour Law: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 34-Validity of-Sanction for prosecuting the management-Granted after taking relevant facts into consid- eration and authority satisfied that there was violation of the provisions of the Act-Held, such sanction valid. Appellant-company terminated the services of their workmen which led to an industrial dispute. An award was passed by the Labour Court directing the appellants to re-instate the workmen. Award became final, but was not implemented. Thereafter, on an application of the second Respondent-workers Union, Labour Commissioner exercising power un- B c D der Section 34 of the Act gave sanction to the workers Union to launch proceedings against the Appellants. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the order. Hence the present appeals. E Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD : 1. Sanction granted to the workers Union to prosecute the management of the first appellant by the Labour Court is not an illegal exercise of power since the authority took all relevant facts into considera- tion and was prima .facie satisfied that there was violation of the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The award passed by the Labour Court has become final and the remedy available to the workmen is under Section 29 of the Act. [578-D] 2. However it is open to the management to raise all contentions including the contention that it was impossible for them to grant relief to the workmen as directed by the Labour Court in the processings launched against them as a consequence of grant of sanction under section 34 of the F G Act. [578-E] H 575 576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 'A Feroz Din & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, AIR (1960) SC363, relied B c D E F G on. Raj Kumar Gupta v. Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors., (1997] 1 SCC 556, referred to. Gookulchand Dwarakadas v. The King, 75 Indian Appeals 30 =AIR (1948) PC 82, cited. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7388-7390 of 2001. From the Judgment and Order -dated 18.12.98 of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. Nos. 2479, 4332 and 4333 of 1998. K.C. Sudarshan, Raghavendra Srivatsa for M.A. Chinnasamy for the appellants. Ms. Indira Jaisingh, Bharat Sangal, Ms. Asha Pathak, Sanjay R. Hegde (NP), Ms. Sangeeta Panikkar and N.N. Ojha for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. Leave granted. Judgment of the Division Bench of the Kainataka High Court is chal- lenged in these appeals. The first appellant is a public limited company and appellants 2-5 are Directors thereof. The appellants challenged the order passed under Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, "the Act"] whereby the first respondent gave sanction for prosecuting the appellants for alleged violation of the provisions contained in the Act. By judgment dated 26.3.1998 the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the order and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was subsequently confirmed by the Division Bench. Relevant facts for the purpose of these appeals are thus. Services of three workmen, who were the employees of the first appellant-company were terminated by the appellant company and those workmen raised an industrial H dispute. An award was passed in favour of the workmen and the appellant- .. ' ,_, ... - I . ' \ MANAGEMENT OF MIS MYSORE STRUCTIJRALS LTD. v. STATE [BALAKRISHNAN, J.) 577 company was directed to reinstate them with continuity of service and full back-wages. The appellant-company challenged the award before the High Court of Karnataka by filing writ petition, which was later dismissed. The award passed by the Labour Court became final. The appellant-company, however, did not implement the award. Initially, the workmen filed an appli- cation for contempt of court before the High Court. That application was rejected by the High Court with the observation that the remedy under Section 29 or Section 33C of the Act was available to the workmen. Thereupon, the second respondent-Workers Union sought sanction of the Government for prosecution of the appellants. The Labour Commissioner exercising power under Section 34 of the Act gave sanction to the Workers Union to launch procee
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.