BHARAT FRITZ WERNER LTD Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant herein is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It carries the business of manufacture and sales of Machine Tools etc., It has employed several employees/workmen for its business. The workmen who have been employed in the Company have formed a. Union which is Respondent No. 2 herein. The Respondent No. 2 Union by its letter dated 04-04-2000 requested the Appellant to recognise five workmen viz., 1) K.A. Ganganna, 2) K.M. Biddappa, 3) S. Shivanna, 4) T. Aswathnarayan and 5) Mallappa as 'Protected Workmen' for the year 2000-01 (01-05-2000 to 30-04-2001) under the provisions of Section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter called as 'the Act') read with Rule 62 of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter called as the Karnataka Rules.

(2.) As the request of the Union was not considered within a reasonable time, the Respondent No. 2 Union raised a dispute in this behalf before Respondent No. 1 on 24-04-2000 and the Appellant raised the objections for recognition of K.A. Ganganna and Shivanna as 'Protected Workmen', since they were said to have been involved in criminal offences and the State had filed complaints against them in the Criminal Courts. In these circumstances, the Respondent No. 1 herein by order dated 04-07-2000 refused to accord the status of 'Protected Workmen' to the aforesaid two workmen viz., K.A. Ganganna and S. Shivanna for the year 2000-01. Thereafter, on 05-07-2000 the Appellant dismissed K.A. Ganganna from the services for the misconduct said to have been committed by him, after a domestic enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer and filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act for approval of the action taken before the Labour Court, where the industrial dispute with regard to the recognition of the aforesaid workmen i.e., K.A. Ganganna and Shivanna was decided.

(3.) Further, Respondent No. 1 by his order impugned in the writ petition refused to recognise them as 'Protected Workmen' Aggrieved by the order passed by Respondent No. 1 the Union approached this Court in W.P. Nos. 42719/2001 and 42720/2001. The Respondent No. 2 Management filed the objections putting forth the grievances that the said two workmen were involved in commission of criminal offences and that the Assistant Labour Commissioner was justified in passing the order refusing recognition of the said two persons as 'Protected Workmen' and as the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the Union, the management of the Appellant Company has filed these appeals challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge.