Partly allowed

Sharavva Hanamappa Bagali v. the Assistant Director

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2012WP/65834/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an award dismissing her claim for reinstatement due to failure to prove continuous work. The High Court allowed the petition in part, directing additional compensation of Rs. 25,000, and dismissed the claim for reinstatement with full benefits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted additional compensation of Rs. 25,000. Claim for reinstatement with full back wages dismissed.

Sharavva Hanamappa Bagali Vs the Assistant… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.65834 OF 2012(L-TER)

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sharavva Hanamappa Bagali, 34 years, R/o Alagawadi Village, Tq: Navalgund, Dist: Dharwad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(By Sri H M Dharigond, Adv)

¶11

And :

¶12

The Assistant Director, Department of Child and Woman Development, Dharwad.

¶13

The Secretary, Department of Child and Woman Development, Vikas Soudha, Bangalore.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(By Smt Megha C Kolekar, HCGP)

¶16

¶17

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned award dated 19.5.2010 passed in reference No.10/2006 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli vide Annexure-A.

¶18

This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned award dated 19.5.2010 passed in Ref. No.10/2006 by the Labour Court, Hubli at Annexure ‘A’ and also for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate her with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

¶21

According to the petitioner, she has worked for eight

¶22

years under the respondent-authority as Anganvadi worker at Alagawadi village of Navalgund taluk and was paid Rs.800/per month. During December 2004, her services have been terminated from the said post as such, she moved the Labour

¶23

¶24

Court by raising an industrial dispute. The matter has been contested by the respondents contending that she was not appointed and was called to work only when there was work on daily wage basis. The Tribunal, after enquiry, on the ground that petitioner has not produced any material to show that she was a workman within the definition of Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, while setting aside the order of dismissal, has directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/to the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement. Hence, this petition.

¶25

3. Heard.

¶26

In the written statement filed by the respondents, it is specifically contended that petitioner was called upon to work on daily wage basis whenever there was work. Petitioner has neither produced the appointment order nor the order of termination to show that she has completed 240 days of continuous work. The Tribunal, in the reasoning given has

¶27

¶28

noted that nothing has been produced to show that she was appointed against a sanctioned post and even the rules of appointment has not been produced. Further, it has also opined that there is a delay in raising the dispute and accordingly, has awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in 2010-I-LLJ-17 (Kant) in

¶30

the case of Vasantha Kumar T.D. Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer, Mysore wherein the Division Bench of this Court in similar circumstances where there was a delay of 9 years in raising the dispute, has awarded a compensation of Rs.85,000/-.

¶31

In the case on hand, nothing has been produced by the petitioner to demonstrate that she has worked for more than 240 days uninterruptedly. However, it would meet the

¶32

¶33

ends of justice if another Rs.25,000/- is awarded as

¶34

compensation to the petitioner by way of damages.

¶35

Petition is allowed in part.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Bkp

Sharavva Hanamappa Bagali v. the Assistant Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharavva Hanamappa Bagali v. the Assistant Director

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 Siddaraju Vs Sumithra Naresh Chidanand

Smt. Sujatha S Bhandary Vs Narayana K Naika

J Manjunath Vs Mohammed Jaffar

Vinod Gurunath Mirajkar Vs Nagappa Laxman Sontakki, by Lrs.

Sri. Channabasappa S/O Ramalingappa Yallur, Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Shivappa S/O Parappa Dinnimani, Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer