Us Technology International PVT LTD. vs. Ms Manju S Pillai
Original PDF →Facts
US Technology International Pvt. Ltd. (the management) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 08.03.2019 passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru. The dispute originated from a claim filed by Ms. Manju S. Pillai (the workman) under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman contended she was a 'workman' as per Section 2(s) of the Act, despite her designation as 'Senior Subject Matter Expert'. She alleged she was forced to resign after being falsely accused of misconduct, specifically attempting to open a locked cupboard at the Intel Office building. The management countered that the workman was not performing manual, skilled, unskilled, operational, or technical work, and thus not a 'workman'. They asserted she committed misconduct by unauthorizedly opening cupboards containing sensitive Intellectual Property of Intel, and offered to resign to avoid disciplinary proceedings.
Held
The Court held that the Labour Court was not justified in framing the additional issue. The additional issue framed by the Labour Court was not incidental to the dispute referred for adjudication. The Supreme Court, in cases like Om Prakash Sharma and Mahendra L. Jain, has consistently held that a Labour Court, deriving its jurisdiction from the reference made by the government, is bound to act within the four-corners of that reference. It cannot enlarge the scope of the reference or deviate from it. The framing of an additional issue that is not incidental to the original dispute amounts to a jurisdictional error. The Court cited Delhi Cloth and General Mills, stating that a Tribunal must confine its adjudication to the points of dispute referred and matters incidental thereto, and something incidental cannot cut at the root of the main thing. Therefore, the framing of the additional issue was set aside.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Labour Court was justified in framing an additional issue that was not incidental to the dispute referred for adjudication, thereby exceeding its jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? Petitioner's Arguments: The management argued that the Labour Court erred by framing an additional issue that went beyond the scope of the original dispute referred to it. They contended that the Labour Court's jurisdiction is confined to the points of dispute referred and matters incidental thereto. Framing an additional issue that is not incidental constitutes a jurisdictional error, which can be corrected by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. They relied on Supreme Court judgments in Om Prakash Sharma and Mahendra L. Jain, which emphasize that a Labour Court cannot enlarge the scope of reference or go beyond the four-corners of the reference. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondent (workman) regarding the framing of the additional issue. The respondent's claim statement and the management's counter statement outline the substantive dispute concerning the workman's status and the circumstances of her resignation.
Sections Cited
Section 2(s)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
Framing of an additional issue by order dated 08.03.2019 in Ref. No.43/2018 on the file of the II Additional Labour Court at Bengaluru, (‘the Labour Court’ for short) is assailed by the US Technology International Private Limited (herein after referred to as the ‘management’ for short).
For the sake of convenience, the respondent is addressed as ‘workman’.
On the dispute raised by the workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the ID Act’ for short), conciliation proceedings were initiated. Failure of conciliation led to the dispute being referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.
The issues referred for adjudication are as under: “ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ
DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁzÀ ªÉÄB AiÀÄÄJ¸ïn UÉÆèç¯ï EArAiÀiÁ, 14£Éà ªÀĺÀr, lªÀgï ©., ¥Éæ¹ÖÃeï ±ÁAw¤PÉÃvÀ£À, ªÉÊmï¦sïïØ, NC: 2024:KHC:30595 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-66 ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è, C¢üÃPÀëPÀ PÉÃqÀgï£À°è, ¹Ã¤AiÀÄgï ¸À¨ÉÓPïÖ ªÀiÁålgï JPïì¥Àmïð-¨ÁAqï ©2 DVzÀÝ ²æêÀÄw ªÀÄAdÄ J¸ïB ¦¼ÉîGÊ, ©. 302, JA.J¸ï.Dgï.qÀÆå qÁæ¥ïì, D¥üï PÀ¸ÀªÀ£ÀºÀ½î gÉÆÃqï, ¸ÀeÁð¥ÀÅgÀ «¥ÉÆæà D¦sÃ¸ï §½, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-35 EªÀgÀÄ PÉÊUÁjPÁ «ªÁzÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ, 1947 PÀ®A 2(J¸ï) gÀr “PÁ«ÄðPÀ” JA§ ¥ÀzÀzÀ ªÁåSÁå£ÀzÀr §gÀĪÀÅzÁV ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¹zÀ°è, ªÉÄà AiÀÄÄJ¸ïn UÉÆèç¯ï EArAiÀiÁ, 14£Éà ªÀĺÀr, lªÀgï ©, ¥Éæ¹ÖÃeï ±ÁAw¤PÉÃvÀ£À, ªÉÊmï¦sïïØ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ- 66 ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è, C¢üÃPÀëPÀ PÉÃqÀgï£À°è, ¹Ã¤AiÀÄgï ¸À¨ÉÓPïÖ ªÀiÁålgï JPïì¥Àmïð-¨ÁAqï ©2 DVzÀÝ ²æêÀÄw ªÀÄAdÄ J¸ïB ¦¼ÉîGÊ, ©. 302, JA.J¸ï.Dgï.qÀÆå qÁæ¥ïì, D¥üï PÀ¸ÀªÀ£ÀºÀ½î gÉÆÃqï, ¸ÀeÁð¥ÀÅgÀ «¥ÉÆæà D¦sÃ¸ï §½, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-35 EªÀjAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀB10.05.2017 gÀAzÀÄ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV gÁfãÁªÉÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀgÉAzÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
ºÁVzÀÝ°è, PÁ«ÄðPÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÉÌ CºÀðgÀÄ?”
Claim statement was filed by the workman, contending that her designation was ‘Senior Subject Matter Expert’, but she was discharging jobs of purely technical nature and she is a ‘workman’ for the purpose of ID Act. Further, she has discharged her jobs assigned to her by the official superiors to the best of her capacity and as such, she has no adverse remarks either on work or performance or conduct during her tenure with the NC: 2024:KHC:30595 company. It is further averred that in a meeting held on 10.05.2017, Mr. Jino Joy, HR Business Partner (Intel-UST) office, stated that she had committed an act of misconduct by trying to open a locked cupboard while she was working in the Intel Office building and the management was contemplating taking disciplinary action against her. She denied the misconduct alleged against her and clarified that she had access to the inventory in the cupboard, that she had kept her handbag in one part of cupboard, and the same is evident from the footage of the CCTV on the said date from the Intel office. The request of hers for the CCTV footage was denied, she specifically contended that she was threatened and forced to resign, and in the event of her refusal to resign, she was intimated that the management would take disciplinary action.
The counter statement was filed by the management, inter alia, contending that she was not doing manual, skilled, unskilled operational or technical work and that she is not a workman as contemplated NC: 2024:KHC:30595 under Section 2(s) of the ID Act and sought dismissal of the dispute. The management contended that the workman committed certain acts of misconduct while she was working on the project at Intel ODC, where she opened the lab outside the cupboards of Intel ODC unauthorizedly without permission and the details of the misconduct have been enumerated at paragraph No.2 of the statement, which reads as under:
“2. Without prejudice to the above contentions it is submitted that the I Party has not come with clean hands before this Hon'ble Court.
She had joined the service of the II party as Senior Subject matter Expert – Band B2 on 11th April 2016. The I Party, while employed as above with the II Party had committed certain acts of misconduct while working in a project in INTEL ODC, a client of the II Party, On 2.5.2017, she had opened the Lab outside cupboards of INTEL ODC, at the premises of INTEL at SRR2 1st Floor, C wing, CRD4 Lab, unauthorizedly without permission. The Cup boards in this facility carried the IP (Intellectual Property) related material of INTEL and leakage of IP will have a major adverse impact on INTEL and can lead to even losing their business. NC: 2024:KHC:30595 Being a Research and Development facility, INTEL is very particular about protecting their IP since any breach on confidentiality of IP can have far reaching consequences on their business. Based on the complaint of INTEL ODC, the II Party was about to initiate disciplinary proceedings against her. At that juncture she had offered to resign from the II Party Company and requested not to initiate disciplinary proceedings against her. She pleaded that if disciplinary proceedings are initiated and punishment is imposed on her that will be a stigma on her which will affect her future prospects to get another employment. Hence she requested to permit her to resign from the II Party's service and accordingly she had submitted her resignation on 10.5.2017 requesting to relieve her on the same day which was accepted by II Party and she was relieved from service.” (Emphasis supplied)
It is averred that as the management was to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the workman, the workman offered to resign and requested not to initiate disciplinary action and voluntarily resigned from the service to avoid disciplinary action. Further, it is averred at paragraph No.5 as under: NC: 2024:KHC:30595 “5. Since the II Party did not accede to her request for fresh employment, the I Party, after having voluntarily resigned from the service of the II Party to avoid disciplinary action and after receiving all the amounts due from the II Party and appropriating the same without any demur, turned around and raised the alleged industrial dispute stating that she has been forced to resign from the II Party Company. It is pertinent to point out that she was also unauthorizedly involved in some other business along with her husband while in service of the II Party which is also misconduct and it appears that the I Party and her husband incurred huge liabilities to some erstwhile employees of II Party. In the conciliation proceedings, before the Conciliation Officer, the I Party had claimed huge amounts of compensation from the II Party, to drop further proceedings. She was also provided with an additional copy of the experience certificate, on her request during the conciliation proceedings. On reference of the dispute to this Hon'ble Court, the I Party has taken up a new contention in her statement of claim filed before this Hon'ble Court that she had not even signed the resignation letter and it was only a draft. The statement of claim has been made without any bonafides. It is submitted that the above reference is a gross abuse of NC: 2024:KHC:30595 process of this Hon'ble Court. The reference is incompetent and invalid as well. (Emphasis supplied)
The Labour Court on 08.03.2019 framed the additional issue which read as under: “Whether second party proves that first party has unauthorisedly involved in some other business alongwith her husband while in service, which is also misconduct?”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court, having derived its juri iction from the reference made by the State Government, could not travel beyond the order of reference and the Tribunal has to confine its adjudication to the points of dispute referred and the matter incidental to the dispute. The additional issue framed by the Labour Court, according to the learned counsel, is not something incidental to the dispute referred to, and the framing of the additional issue is one without juri iction warranting interference by this Court. NC: 2024:KHC:30595
In support of his contention, learned counsel relies upon the following decisions:
M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, Jharkhand3 (Oshiar Prasad)
Mukand Ltd. vs. Mukand Staff and Officers’ NC: 2024:KHC:30595
action of the termination / dismissal to be gone into by the Labour Court. Learned counsel submits that it is always open to the Court before which the order is challenged to go beyond the form and ascertain the true character of the voluntary retirement.
5 (2006) 13 SCC 28 6 (2006) 5 SCC 123 7 AIR 1984 SC 636 NC: 2024:KHC:30595
In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:
Courier & Cargo General Employees’ Union, Manufacturing Co., Ltd. vs. M/s. Straw NC: 2024:KHC:30595 Calcutta parties, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the Labour Court was justified in framing additional issue in the present facts and circumstances of the case?”
An industrial Tribunal is a creation of statute, hence, its juri iction is circumscribed by the Act, its adjudication must, therefore, be confined to the perimeter of the provisions of the Act. It cannot dispense its own brand of industrial dispute, it may, of course look for guidance, to various sources, yet its award is legitimate
12 (1999) 3 SCC 60 13 AIR 2001 SC 490 14 AIR 1967 SC 469 NC: 2024:KHC:30595 only so long as it draws its sustenance from the order of reference.
Section 10 (1) of the ID Act reads as under:
“10. Reference of dispute to Boards, Courts or Tribunals. (1) Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing— (a) refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof; or (b) refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Court for inquiry; or (c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication; or (d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication:
Provided that where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the Third Schedule and is not NC: 2024:KHC:30595 likely to affect more than one hundred workmen, the appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court under clause (c):
Provided further that where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under section 22 has been given, the appropriate Government shall, unless it considers that the notice has been frivolously or vexatiously given or that it would be inexpedient so to do, make a reference under this sub-section notwithstanding that any other proceedings under this Act in respect of the dispute may have commenced:
Provided also that where the dispute in relation to which the Central Government is the appropriate Government, it shall be competent for the Government to refer the dispute to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, constituted by the State Government.”
Section 10(4) of the ID Act reads as under:
“10. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals.– (4) Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points NC: 2024:KHC:30595 of dispute for adjudication, the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto.”
Section 10(4) lays down that the adjudication by the Tribunal is to be confined only to: i. Points specified in the reference and ii. The matters incidental thereto.
The law is well settled that the Tribunal is not free to enlarge the scope of the dispute referred to it. In the instant case, the State Government referred the issues for adjudication, the translated Kannada language of the issues is enumerated as under: “i) Whether Smt. Manju S Pillai, B 302, MSRW Drops, Off Kasavanahalli Road, Near Sarjapur Wipro Office, Bangalore-560035, who was working in Superintendent cadre as Senior Subject Matter Expert-Band B2, in the Management of M/S UST Global India, 14th Floor, Tower-B, Prestige Shanthinikethan, Whitefield, Bangalore-66, proves that she is a ‘Workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947? NC: 2024:KHC:30595 ii) If proved, whether Claimant proves that the Management of M/S UST Global India, 14th Floor, Tower-B, Prestige Shanthinikethan, Whitefield, Bangalore-66 has forcefully obtained resignation of Smt. Manju S Pillai B 302, MSRW Drops, Off Kasavanahalli Road, Near Sarjapur Wipro Office, Bangalore-560035, who was in Superintendent cadre as Senior Subject Matter Expert-Band B2, and thereby dismissed her from services on 10/05/2017?
iii) If yes, for what relief Workman is entitled to?”
The issue referred for adjudication is regarding whether the petitioner is a ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act and whether the claimant proves that the management has forcibly obtained her resignation and dismissed her from service on 10.05.2017. The management, in its counter statement, contended that the misconduct on the part of the workman was on account of having “opened the lab cupboards of Intel ODC unauthorizedly without permission,” which is evident from paragraph No.2 of the counter statement. Further, in the statement, it is mentioned that, as the management was NC: 2024:KHC:30595 supposed to initiate disciplinary action for the above misconduct, it was at that time, the workman was offered for voluntary retirement.
The workman in her claim statement has also urged the very ground about the alleged act of misconduct of trying to open a locked cupboard, as is evident from paragraph Nos.4 and 5. The management, in its counter statement at paragraph No. 5, revealed some misconduct on the part of the workman. The misconduct as stated at paragraph No.5 cannot be attributed to be incidental to the dispute referred for adjudication. The Labour Court, by framing of additional issues, has traveled beyond the scope of reference made by the State Government and enlarged the scope of reference. Merely because in the counter statement, the management has referred to certain acts of misconduct does not make a dispute for the Labour Court to frame an additional issue and it cannot be said that the additional issue framed is incidental to the dispute referred. The Labour Court fell into juri ictional NC: 2024:KHC:30595 error and the same can be interfered with by this Court under Articles 226 and 227. 20. The Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Sharma has held at paragraph Nos.12 and 14 as under:
“12. The specific issue which was, therefore, referred for determination by the Labour Court, related to the dispute as regards violation of Section 25-H of the Act. If the said provisions had not been found to be violated, the question of setting aside the order of termination by the Labour Court did not and could not arise. The learned Single Judge proceeded on the premise that the High Court, in exercise of its writ juri iction, cannot sit in appeal over the award of the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge was right, but then, only because the juri iction of the High Court, while exercising of its power of judicial review was limited, it would not mean that even a juri ictional error could not have been corrected. The provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would be attracted if the inferior Tribunal has, inter alia, committed a juri ictional error. What would be the ground for judicial review, in regard to the orders passed by an inferior Tribunal is no longer res integra. x x x NC: 2024:KHC:30595
In the instant case, the award of the Labour Court suffers from an illegality, which appears on the face of the record. The juri iction of the Labour Court emanated from the order of the reference. It could not have passed an order going beyond the terms of the reference. While passing the award, if the Labour Court exceeds its juri iction, the award must be held to be suffering from a juri ictional error. It was capable of being corrected by the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. The High Court, therefore, clearly fell in error in refusing to exercise its juri iction. The award and the judgment of the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The award is set aside to the extent of the order of reinstatement with back wages. The writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court is, thus, allowed.”
The Apex Court in the case of Mahendra L. Jain has held that the Labour Court having derived its juri iction from the reference made by the government, it was bound to act within the four-corners thereof, it could not enlarge the scope of reference nor could deviate there NC: 2024:KHC:30595 from. A demand which was not raised at the time of raising the dispute could not have been gone into by the Labour Court being not the subject matter thereof.
Additional issue raised by the Labour Court is not incidental to a dispute and the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills has held at paragraph No.21 as under:
“21. From the above it therefore appears that while it is open to the appropriate Government to refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected therewith for adjudication, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication to the points of dispute referred and matters incidental thereto. In other words, the Tribunal is not free to enlarge the scope of the dispute referred to it but must confine its attention to the points specifically mentioned and anything which is incidental thereto. The word “incidental” means according to Webster's New World Dictionary: “happening or likely to happen as a result of or in connection with something more important; being an incident; casual; hence, secondary or minor, but usually associated:” NC: 2024:KHC:30595 “Something incidental to a dispute” must
therefore mean something happening as a result of or in connection with the dispute or associated with the dispute. The dispute is the fundamental thing while something incidental thereto is an adjunct to it. Something incidental, therefore, cannot cut at the root of the main thing to which it is an adjunct. In the light of the above, it would appear that the third issue was framed on the basis that there was a strike and there was a lockout and it was for the Industrial Tribunal to examine the facts and circumstances leading to the strike and the lockout and to come to a decision as to whether one or the other or both were justified. On the issue as framed it would not be open to the workmen to question the existence of the strike, or, to the Management to deny the declaration of a lockout. The parties were to be allowed to lead evidence to show that the strike was not justified or that the lockout was improper. The third issue has also a sub-issue, namely, if the lockout was not legal, whether the workmen were entitled to wages for the period of the lockout. Similarly, the fourth issue proceeds on the basis that there was a sit-down-strike in the Swatantra Bharat Mills on 23-2-1966 and the question referred was as to the propriety or legality of the same. It was not for any of the Unions to contend on the issues as framed that there was no NC: 2024:KHC:30595 sit-down strike. On their success on the plea of justification of the sit-down strike depended their claim to wages for the period of the strike.”
The order of framing additional issue is not confined to the adjudication to the points of dispute referred and matter incidental thereto and accordingly, the Labour Court was not justified in framing the additional issue and the point framed for consideration is answered
accordingly and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. Framing of additional issue dated 08.03.2019 is hereby set aside. iii. It is needless to observe that the Labour Court to adjudicate Ref. No.43/2018 as expeditiously as possible. (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
MBM/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.