Allowed

Chief Executive Officer v. Puttabasavanna

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2012WP/33346/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award. The Court held that a daily wager, for whom no sanctioned post exists, is not entitled to reinstatement even if retrenchment violated statutory procedure, and awarded compensation instead.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the respondent in lieu of reinstatement.

Chief Executive Officer Vs Puttabasavanna — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.33346/2009 (L-TER)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, MYSORE-570 005.

¶9

2 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DIVISION (EARLIER KNOWN AS ZILLA PANCHAYAT ENGINEERING DIVISION) KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSORE-570 023.

¶10

3 PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION, (EARLIER KNOWN AS ZILLA PANCHAYAT ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION) NANJANGUD TALUQ., NANJANGUD-571 301 REPTD BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. ...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI B J SOMAYAJI, ADV.)

¶12

AND :

¶13

PUTTABASAVANNA, S/O SHIVABASPPA,

¶14

¶15

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, MUDUGURU, MUDUGURU POST, GUNDLUPET TQ., CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SMT.P.C.SUNITHA, ADV, APPEARING FOR M/S M SIVAPPA ASSTS, ADVS,)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD DTD 30.12.08 PASSED BY LABOUR COURT, MYSORE IN IID NO.214/1999 (ANNEX-E) AND ETC.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This writ petition is filed by the Zilla Panchayat, questioning

¶22

the award in I.I.D.No.214/1999 dated 30.12.2008 on the file of

¶23

Labour Court, Mysore.

¶24

The respondent – workman had raised a dispute under

¶25

Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act ('Act' for short) interalia claiming that, he was engaged as an Assistant to the Hand

¶26

¶27

Pump Repairer on a daily wage of Rs.30/- initially and Rs.60/thereafter. However, his services came to be terminated with effect from 01.08.1999. He also claimed that, he had completed 240 days in a year.

¶28

The said claim was contested by the petitioners interalia contending that, the dispute is not maintainable, as the respondent had not completed 240 days in any year nor he is the workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act nor Government is an industry.

¶29

The Labour Court on appreciation of the evidence found that, the workman has proved that he had worked from 1995 to 1999 and his services have not been retrenched in terms of Section 25-F of the Act and accordingly, earlier it had ordered for reinstatement without backwages. The said order was called in question before this Court in W.P.No.3926/2004. This Court set aside the award by order dated 28^th August 2007 and remanded the

¶30

¶31

matter for fresh disposal. After remand, once again the Labour Court held that, the workman has proved that, his retrenchment is contrary to Section 25-F of the Act and directed the petitioners herein to reinstate the workman with 25% backwages and continuity of service and consequential benefits. It is the said award, that is called in question.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the engagement of the respondent was on daily wage basis, he was taken as Assistant to Hand Pump Repairer, such post is not a sanctioned post. Further contended that, there is no job available as Assistant Hand Repairer. Further, hand pump operation has been entrusted to respective Gram Panchayats. The Zilla Panchayat does not have any such employment. He also submitted that, there is no record to show that, the workman had worked 240 days in a year and as such, the Labour Court should not have directed the reinstatement with backwages.

¶33

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent -

¶35

workman submitted that, once the respondent has proved that he is a workman and he has been retrenched without following the procedure under Section 25-F of the Act, he is entitled for all consequential benefits. It is also submitted that, the respondent was one amongst 16 such persons and remaining persons have been engaged and only this respondent has not been engaged.

¶36

It is not in dispute that, the employment was only

¶37

temporary for a particular purpose. Even engagement of the petitioner was as an Assistant to Hand Pump Repairer. The post of Hand Pump Repairer itself is not in existence, as it is transferred to respective Panchayats. In the absence of any sanctioned post in the public employment if any engagement is made for a temporary period and if that purpose has been served, further direction to reinstatement would affect the administration as it may not be possible to reinstate such persons in such post. Apart from this, in case of public employment, there is engagement for temporary

¶38

¶39

purpose, even in case of violation of Section 25-F of the Act, the Apex Court in many cases has held that the compensation could be awarded in lieu of reinstatement. One such decision is reported in 2010 AIR SCW 2860. The relevant paragraph Nos.7 and 8 read as under:

¶40

“ 7. In a recent judgment authored by one of us (R.M. Lodha, J), in the case of Jagbir Singh vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Anr, the aforesaid decisions were noticed and it was stated:

¶41

“7 It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in reason past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases. This court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact – situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice.

¶42

14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of

¶43

¶44

reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee.”

¶45

8. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monitory compensation would sub serve the ends of justice. In our considered view, the compensation of Rs.40,000/- to each of the workmen (Respondents No.1 to 14) shall meet the ends of justice. We ordered accordingly. Such payment shall be made within six weeks from today failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.”

¶46

Apart from this, in this case, even according to the petitioners, respondent was denied employment in August 1999 and nearly 13 years have been lapsed thereafter. In these circumstances, even if there is some material to show that the respondent – workman had worked 240 days in a year during 1995 to 1999, the reinstatement cannot be automatic. Hence, in these

¶47

¶48

circumstances, I find that, in lieu of reinstatement, petitioners are directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent – workman.

¶49

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

KNM/DP

Chief Executive Officer v. Puttabasavanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chief Executive Officer v. Puttabasavanna

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

M/S Krishi Polymers Private Limtied Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Atalanta Applied Dynamics Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Feroz Pasha M B Vs the Divisional Controller

N Veeranna (Senior Citizen) Vs the Divisional Controller

Smt. Vasantha Vs the Managing Director

R Gopalakrishna Vs the Managing Director