LUPIN LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST petitioner is the pharma division of a private limited company having its office at Mumbai, described as 2nd petitioner, while petitioners No.3 to 13 are the Chairman, Managing Director, Executive Directors and Directors respectively, while the 14th petitioner is the Regional Sales Manager of the 1st petitioner, located at Mysore Road, Bangalore. Petitioners aggrieved by the filing of the criminal complaint in C.C.No.237/2011 by the Senior Labour Inspector and the taking of cognizance by order dated 12.12.2011 of the JMFC (II Court), Mysore, for commission of offences under the Sales Promotion Employees (Condition of Services) Act 1976 (for short 'the Act') have presented these writ petitions.

(2.) PETITIONERS ' employee by name L.Muralidhar Peshwa is said to have made a representation dated 18.4.2011 to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Annexure -D, against the 1st petitioner and the 14th petitioner for not furnishing a copy of the appointment order in Form -A as per Rule 22(1) and the service book in Form -C under Rule 23(b) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Condition of Services) Rules, 1976 (for short 'the Rules'). That officer is said to have directed the Senior Labour Inspector to take action and submit a report. That employee filed yet another complaint petition dated 18.5.2011 with the Assistant Labour Commissioner reiterating the earlier allegations, following which, the said officer by notice dated 21.5.2011 Annexure -G directed the parties to appear in a joint meeting scheduled on 28.05.2011 at 3.00 p.m. and file objections and documents pertaining to the dispute in five sets. The 14th petitioner by a reply dated 8.6.2011 Annexure -H, filed on 9.6.2011 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner denied the allegations. According to the petitioners nothing further happened in the proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Thereafterwards, it is asserted that a Senior Labour Inspector by name N.Lakshmikantha Jois issued a show cause notice dated 15.6.2011 Annexure -J to show cause as to why action should not be initiated in the matter of prosecution on failure to furnish the relevant materials and also an explanation, which according to the petitioners was responded to by reply dated 21.6.2011 Annexure -K. It is further case of the petitioners that when said N.Lakshmikanthat Jois did not proceed further to the show cause notice, another Senior Labour Inspector by name M.M.Shivashankarappa issued a show cause notice dated 23.7.2011 calling upon the Chairman and Managing Director of the 1st petitioner to produce the appointment letter in Form -A and Service book in Form -C based on the complaint petition dated 5.11.11 of the workmen L.Muralidhar Peshwa. In the said notice, it was asserted, that there was a mention that no reply or response was filed by the petitioners, hence to show cause as to why action should not be taken within seven days as contemplated under the Act. The representative of the petitioner company is said to have met the Senior Labour Inspector and communicated to him over the written response earlier filed and had nothing more to say in the matter.

(3.) THE employee L.Muralidhar Peshwa petitioned the State Government over his transfer order dated 21.3.2011, whence the State issued notice to the petitioner and after deliberations by order dated 9.8.2012 Annexure -P held that there is no violation of the Act and Rules in the matter of allegation of unfair Labour Practices. The State Government on its part on the basis of the representation made by the workmen referred the industrial dispute over transfer and dismissal from service for adjudication before the Additional Labour Court, Bangalore registered as reference No.11/2012, which is said to be pending.