0

“Karnataka High Court Overturns Labour Court Relief, Rules Manageral or Supervisorial Role Not Classified as ‘Workmen’ Under ID Act”

Blog , ,

Case Title: SMT. N. BHUVANESHWARI Versus THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. AMBUTHIRTHA POWER PRIVATE LTD.,

Case No: 49982/2018

Decided on: 8th April, 2024

Facts of the case

In this case, there is a disagreement about whether Smt. Bhuvaneshwari, the applicant, meets the requirements to be considered a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the ID Act and, if so, whether M/s. Ambuthirtha Power Private Limited has good reason to fire her. She was declared a “workman” by the Labour Court, which also mandated that the management give her compensation of Rs. 5,00,000. The management countered that Bhuvaneshwari could not be categorized as a “workman” under the ID Act because her position as an Executive Secretary included managerial and supervisory responsibilities. Additionally, the management emphasized that Bhuvaneshwari’s expertise, duties, and pay were consistent with a managerial role rather than a secretarial one.

Appellant’s Contentions

According to the management, Smt. Bhuvaneshwari, the applicant, was handling administrative and supervisory responsibilities instead of clerical work as an Executive Secretary, as demonstrated by her experience, responsibilities, and pay. They contend that the Labour Court erred in granting her compensation and categorizing her as a “workman” in accordance with Section 2(s) of the ID Act without taking into account the factual evidence. Furthermore, as per the management’s assertion, Bhuvaneshwari failed to prove herself as a ‘workman’ under the ID Act, meaning she was not eligible for reinstatement or other benefits, and therefore, the Labour Court should not have decided the termination issue.

Respondent’s Contentions

The respondent, requested compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back pay, and other benefits. In response, the management challenged the termination order and asked for a lump sum payment of Rs. 5,00,000 in order to avoid classifying Bhuvaneshwari as a “workman” under the ID Act. In case , the management’s attorney made several arguments.

Court Analysis and Judgement

The petitioner was mistakenly designated by the Labour Court under the ID Act as a “workman,” even though her job as an Executive Secretary involved administrative and supervisory responsibilities rather than secretarial work. Without taking into account the applicant’s work, which was more suited for a managerial role, the Court granted compensation. The management contended that the applicant’s duties and position were managerial, not clerical, and that the Court’s decision to grant the applicant Rs. 5,00,000 in compensation was unwarranted. This was made clear by the party-in-person.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

 

 

 

0

“Karnataka High Court Overturns Labour Court Relief, Rules Manageral or Supervisorial Role Not Classified as ‘Workmen’ Under ID Act”

Blog , ,

Case Title: SMT. N. BHUVANESHWARI Versus THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. AMBUTHIRTHA POWER PRIVATE LTD.,

Case No: 49982/2018

Decided on: 8th April, 2024

Facts of the case

In this case, there is a disagreement about whether Smt. Bhuvaneshwari, the applicant, meets the requirements to be considered a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the ID Act and, if so, whether M/s. Ambuthirtha Power Private Limited has good reason to fire her. She was declared a “workman” by the Labour Court, which also mandated that the management give her compensation of Rs. 5,00,000. The management countered that Bhuvaneshwari could not be categorized as a “workman” under the ID Act because her position as an Executive Secretary included managerial and supervisory responsibilities. Additionally, the management emphasized that Bhuvaneshwari’s expertise, duties, and pay were consistent with a managerial role rather than a secretarial one.

Appellant’s Contentions

According to the management, Smt. Bhuvaneshwari, the applicant, was handling administrative and supervisory responsibilities instead of clerical work as an Executive Secretary, as demonstrated by her experience, responsibilities, and pay. They contend that the Labour Court erred in granting her compensation and categorizing her as a “workman” in accordance with Section 2(s) of the ID Act without taking into account the factual evidence. Furthermore, as per the management’s assertion, Bhuvaneshwari failed to prove herself as a ‘workman’ under the ID Act, meaning she was not eligible for reinstatement or other benefits, and therefore, the Labour Court should not have decided the termination issue.

Respondent’s Contentions

The respondent, requested compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back pay, and other benefits. In response, the management challenged the termination order and asked for a lump sum payment of Rs. 5,00,000 in order to avoid classifying Bhuvaneshwari as a “workman” under the ID Act. In case , the management’s attorney made several arguments.

Court Analysis and Judgement

The petitioner was mistakenly designated by the Labour Court under the ID Act as a “workman,” even though her job as an Executive Secretary involved administrative and supervisory responsibilities rather than secretarial work. Without taking into account the applicant’s work, which was more suited for a managerial role, the Court granted compensation. The management contended that the applicant’s duties and position were managerial, not clerical, and that the Court’s decision to grant the applicant Rs. 5,00,000 in compensation was unwarranted. This was made clear by the party-in-person.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

 

 

 

0

Blacklisting Decision Over Hand Sanitiser Quality During COVID-19 Reversed, Asserts Due Process Must Be Followed: Karnataka HC

Blog , ,

Case Title: M/S. SUJAL PHARMA versus KARNATAKA STATE MEDICAL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED

Case No: 20520 OF 2021

Decided on: 23rd April, 2024

Quorum: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

Facts of the case

In this case, a company was placed on a blacklist without being given a notice to explain why, which is against natural justice principles. The necessity of giving someone a fair chance to explain themselves before acting was stressed by the High Court. Because the petitioner was not notified, the High Court invalidated the blacklisting decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to natural justice principles. The respondent’s order was overturned by the Court, which granted the writ petition and emphasized the significance of upholding natural justice principles . The Court underlined the right to be heard prior to taking any such action and emphasized that blacklisting without adhering to natural justice principles is unlawful .

Appellant’s Contentions

The appellant contended that the order blacklisting them lacked a prior notice, violating principles of natural justice. While there may not be a specific rule mandating notice before blacklisting, it is an implied principle of the rule of law to follow natural justice when an order has civil consequences. The appellant argued that blacklisting affects future business and should only occur after giving the affected party a chance to be heard and make representations against the order .

Respondent’s Contentions

The respondent emphasized the court’s discretion in helping those who are late, arguing that the delinquent employee should not be permitted to bring up old claims. Article 226 of the Constitution grants the court the competence to exercise its discretion in granting delays, even when they may result in the dismissal of petitions.

Court analysis and Judgement

The papers go over how important it is to adhere to natural justice principles, including the requirement that a show-cause notice be served prior to taking any action, such as blacklisting. The notice must clearly state the grounds for action and the proposed punishment or action, and it must offer the affected party a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves. The party awarding the contract has the authority to blacklist a contractor; but, actions such as blacklisting are susceptible to court scrutiny based on natural justice and proportionality considerations, necessitating a fair hearing for the party on the blacklist. If the court takes too long to act, it may decline to exercise its discretionary writ power; nonetheless, the court’s authority under Article 226 of the Constitution should be used wisely, taking into account all relevant factors, such as the nature of the disagreement and the reason for the hold-up.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

 

 

 

0

Constitutional Validity of Ordinance mandating 60% Kannada in sign boards

Blog , , ,

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka State government recently passed an ordinance which puts imposition on establishments such as shops, enterprises, and institution sign boards to use 60% Kannada. The Kannada Language Comprehensive Development (Amendment) ordinance ensures that all signboards and nameplates of commercial establishments, industries, hospitals and organizations will compulsorily have 60% information in Kannada[1].

In December, several establishments such as Starbucks were vandalized because of the lack of Kannada language in the signboards.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION

Article 345 of the constitution of India states that a state can have its official language for the matters of promotion and publication of the majority-speaking language. It reads as,

“ 345. Official language or languages of a State[2].—Subject to the provisions of articles 346 and 347, the Legislature of a State may by law adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the language or languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of that State:

Provided that, until the Legislature of the State otherwise provided by law, the English language shall continue to be used for those official purposes within the State for which it was being used immediately before the commencement of this Constitution.”

As per this provision, the Kannada language was adopted as the official language. The main objective was to develop the regional language in furtherance of which the state enacted the Karnataka Official Language Act, 1963 and Karnataka Local Authorities (Official Language) Act, 1981.

Further in the year of 2015, Kannada Language Learning Act, 2015 was enacted to ensure the learning of Kannada as one of the languages in all schools in the state of Karnataka[3].

NEED FOR THE ORDINANCE :

The government’s fundamental reason for enacting such rules was that despite such enactments, notifications and orders, there is no progress in the implementation of the official language. It was presumed that the Kannada language was not taught up to expectations by the schools. This pattern was specifically seen in the higher or technical or professional education classes.

Another main reason was that there was no implementation of the Kannada language in offices, industries, shops and establishments. The ordinance states that :

“Considering the scenario, to ensure the extensive use and propagation of Kannada Language and to coordinate the activities relating to the implementation of Kannada as Official Language new law is essential”

Other features of the Act also include setting up obligations for businesses to issue the directions of use in Kannada, reservation of seats for students who have studied in Kannada medium, establishing kannada cells by manufacturers to promote kannada in daily work. The ordinance also mandates that for non-kannada speaking employees teaching units to be set up[4].

ANALYSIS :

The amendment of the language act proposes the promotion of the Kannada language in an indirect manner. It is contemplated that these rules if not followed would only lead to more harm and violent behaviour from mobs. The primary question that arises is, whether this rule along with the bill is unfair to other citizens of the country who are domiciled in Karnataka.

Under the ambit of Article 14, the state should ensure that there is equal treatment to all the citizens and that should be upheld by the state machinery. The Supreme Court held that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly in various instances[5]. The rules put an imposition on the businesses to employ persons who are fluent in Kannada. This disposes of the idea of equality as the enjoyment of privileges only by the “Kannadigas” is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Additionally, it is a fundamental right of the citizens to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Adding an arbitrary rule on how business should express or the employees must be hired based on language seems purely not in line with the law. The Supreme Court also held that giving preference based on language gives undue advantage to less meritorious candidates must be followed[6].

It has been held multiple times by the courts that forcing someone to learn a language goes beyond all ideas of democracy. The free state concept, that is the right citizens hold to express themselves is an absolute privilege that must not be regulated. In the case of the Kailash Chandra Sharma V State of Rajasthan[7], The Court noted that treating a person with permanent residence in Tamil Nadu or who speaks Tamil, differently in Karnataka may violate his right against discrimination and freedom to freely move through the country.  It also noted that it would derecognise the essential unity and integrity of the country by treating it as if it were a mere conglomeration of independent states. 

While it is completely reasonable to promote language as it is constitutionally valid, the balance between extensiveness and intensity of such promotion should be met. Noncompliance with the rules comes along with the penalty of fines to the establishments.

In a survey, it was identified that in over 12 districts of Karnataka, at least 10% of the domicile residents are non-kannada speakers[8]. This gives the idea that the implementation of such rules would make the everyday lives of non-kannada speaker extremely difficult as they are forced to learn a new language.

CONCLUSION :

The Chief Minister of Karnataka gave way for 60% Kannada in signboards of various institutions including hospitals in the doorway of promoting the language. The CM has also stated that the rest of the board can be in any other language. However, the problem arises in interpreting the 60% and the violent reactions for non-compliance despite there being a law to provide a penalty.  The rule should be in such a way that it does not hamper business and maintain peace and order in the country. It should be kept in mind that in a democracy like India, where all cultures and practices are welcomed, the rules should be made in consonance with the same neutral perspective.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

[1] Yamini CS, “Karnataka cabinet approves 60% Kannada language rule on sign boards”, HINDUSTAN TIMES (Jan 06, 2024) https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/bengaluru-news/karnataka-cabinet-approves-60-kannada-language-rule-on-sign-boards-101704523506007.html

[2] Constitution of India, Art 345

[3] THE KANNADA LANGUAGE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2022

[4]The kannada language comprehensive development bill, 2022 – State legislative brief https://prsindia.org/bills/states/the-kannada-language-comprehensive-development-bill-2022#_edn10

[5] Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors., 2000.

[6] Sunanda Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1995), AIR1995 SC 914.

[7] Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (2002), AIR2002 SC 2877.

[8] Population Census 2011 : PRS