Partly allowed

The Deputy Conservator of v. Sri Chinnaiah

Karnataka HC1 Oct 2012WP/13705/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Karnataka partially allowed a writ petition questioning a Labour Court award. The Court held the award was illegal as the Labour Court declared the Forest Department an industry solely by citing a Supreme Court precedent without examining evidence or the nature of duties. The award was set aside and the matter remitted for factual findings.

What did the court decide?

The award dated 06.04.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Mysore in I.I.D. No.204/1999 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court with a direction to give a finding on whether the State dep

The Deputy Conservator of Vs Sri Chinnaiah — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B. ADI

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.13705/2012(L-TER)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

1 THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, MYSORE DIVISION, ARANYA BHAVAN, ASHOKAPURAM, MYSORE

¶9

2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, BANGALORE

¶10

3 THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN, MALLESHWARAM, 18TH CROSS,

¶11

BANGALORE

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

( BY SRI.JAGADEESH MUNDARAGI, AGA, )

¶14

AND :

¶15

SRI CHINNAIAH S/O PUTTAVEERAIAH MAJOR, DEBURU VILLAGE AND POST, NANJANGUD TALUK

¶16

RESPONDENT ( BY SMT.PADMAVATHI S SAVANUR, ADV.,)

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 6.4.2011 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LABOUR COURT, MYSORE IN I.I.D. NO.204/1999 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF THE ORDER DATED 6.4.2011 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT AT MYSORE IN I.I.D. NO.204/1999 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶19

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition is by the State questioning the award in I.I.D No.204/1999 dated 06.04.2011. The respondent – workman has raised a dispute under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, inter alia alleging that, his removal from service with effect from 20th August 1987 is violative of section 25-F of the Act.

¶22

The said claim petition was opposed on the ground that the petitioner – Forest Department is not an industry. The Labour Court framed Issue No.1 as follows:

¶23

“Whether I party proves that there is relationship

¶24

of workman and employer between him and II

¶25

¶26

party ?”

¶27

3. The Labour Court at para 17 of its award holds

¶28

that, the Forest Department is an industry.

¶29

Reading of para 16 only shows that the Labour Court has relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1996) 2 SCC 293 in the matter of CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND ANOTHER Vs. JAGANNATH MARUTI KONDHARE, without adverting to the evidence on record.

¶30

The question as to whether a department of State is an industry or whether the respondent is a workman, has to be decided on the basis of the averments made in the claim petition and the evidence supporting the same and the burden is on the respondent - workman to establish that the petitioner is an industry within the meaning of clause 2(j) of the Act.

¶31

¶32

However, the Labour Court, without even

¶33

adverting to the claim petition, evidence and without even considering the nature of the duties, only referring to the judgement of the Apex Court, has passed the impugned

¶34

award. Referring to a judgement is only to support the opinion formed on the basis of the evidence on record. As such, unless the evidence and materials are considered and finding is arrived, judgement rendered only by relying on the judgement of the Apex Court or this Court does not become the judgement based on reasonings.

¶35

The Labour Court, without giving a finding on the

¶36

issue as to, “whether petitioner – forest department is an industry’ ?” , on the facts and circumstances of the cases, could not have held that the petitioner is an industry`. Hence, the matter requires reconsideration.

¶37

Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mysore,

¶38

¶39

in I.I.D. No.204/1999 dated 06.04.2011 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court with a direction to consider the claim petition, evidence of the respondent - claimant and the evidence led by the State to give a finding as to “whether the State department is an industry?” for the purpose of this case and proceed thereafter. While considering the said issue, the Labour Court must also consider the nature of duties, the activities of the State etc. If there is any payment due to the respondent – workman from the petitioner, the respondent – workman is at liberty to make appropriate application before the Labour Court and the Labour Court shall dispose of the said application in accordance with law.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

sma

The Deputy Conservator of v. Sri Chinnaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Deputy Conservator of v. Sri Chinnaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shankare Gowda S/O Budi Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

V B Mallikeshi S/O Channappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Srinivas P Vs Managing Director the Horticulture Producers Co. Op

M/S.Vxl Instruments Ltd. Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Deputy Conservator of Forests Vs Dundaiah S/O Chikkamadegowda

The Karnataka Bank Limited, Vs Sri S M Terdal