Industrial Disputes Act | Any Dispute Regarding Absorption Or Regularisation Can Only Be Raised By Labour Union On Behalf Of Workman: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has said that a claim before the Industrial Tribunal by an individual workman regarding his absorption and regularisation in a company can be raised only through a Union representing the workman not by himself.

A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha allowed the petition filed by the Management of M/s Tata Advanced System Limited and set aside the order of reference dated 06.02.2023 issued by the Department of Labour directing the Tribunal, to adjudicate whether respondent No.2 (Rudrachari) was justified in raising the dispute regarding the regularisation/permanency of his job with the petitioner company and subsequent relief, if any.

Rudrachari was employed by M/s. Adecco India Private Limited, one of the Labour Contractors at the petitioner's company.

It was submitted that he had filed a plea before the Labour Commissioner, expressing grievances about his employment. The Labour Commissioner transferred the petition to the jurisdictional Deputy Labour Commissioner.

It was argued that the conciliation proceedings held by the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer ended in failure and the Conciliation Officer submitted a factual report to the Government, on receipt of which the Department passed the impugned order.

The petitioner argued that as per Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act), the appropriate Government may refer an industrial dispute between the workmen/union and the management for adjudication, but the pre-condition for referring a dispute between the management and the workman is that the dispute must be an “industrial dispute” as envisaged under Section 2 (k) of the Act.

It was argued that the dispute must be espoused by the group of the workmen or trade unio, and that a dispute between the single workman/employee and his employer will not become an industrial dispute.

The petitioner countered the same by arguing that the ID Act was amended adding Section 2A making the individual dispute of a workman an industrial dispute, if it related to dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or termination of individual workmen. Thus, Section 2A carves an exception to the definition of individual dispute as given in Section 2(k) of the ID Act, it was submitted.

The bench placed reliance on the judgment of the five Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Workmen of Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi) Vs. Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi), 1965.

It held that a judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of the High Court in the case of Prakash and Ors. Vs. Superintending Engineer (Electrical), O and M Circle, Belgaum and Ors, 2000, had also taken a view that the individual workman cannot raise a dispute concerning absorption and regularisation.

Accordingly, the bench held “In light of the provisions enumerated and the decisions stated supra, the proposition is well settled and no more res integra that an individual workman can raise a dispute, it can only be for removal, termination or dismissal and if the workman wants to raise a dispute with regard to absorption and regularisation, that can only be done by a union, which can raise a dispute on behalf of the workman.”

Appearance: Advocate Prashanth B.K, for petitioner.

HCGP Rashmi Patel, For R1

Advocate Kavyashree G S for R2.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 48

Case Title: Management of M/s Tata Advanced System Limited AND The Secretary To Department of Labour & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 7674/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order