Allowed

Vilas S/O Manohar Rao Tanni v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2012WP/66085/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ under Article 226 seeking to quash the Labour Court's confirmation of dismissal of a deceased workman. The Court relied on Section 33(2)(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, holding the dismissal non est. The petitioner was directed to settle retirement benefits without back wages.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioners entitled to retirement benefits without back wages; respondent to settle benefits within three months.

Vilas S/O Manohar Rao Tanni Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶3

Dated this the 4^th day of September, 2012

¶4

Before

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH

¶6

Writ Petition 66085 / 2012 (L KSRTC )

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vilas S/o Manohar Rao Tanni, 49 yrs Dead – by legal representatives

¶9

A Vani W/o late Vilas Tanni, 42 yrs

¶10

B Vandan D/o late Vilas Tanni 9 yrs, Student

¶11

C Vivek S/o late Vilas Tanni 7 yrs, Student

¶12

B & C are minors and are reptd. by Mother – 1(a) petitioner and are r/o H # 123, Datta Krupa, Siddharudha Nagar Anand Nagar Road, Old Hubli, Hubli

¶13

Petitioners

¶14

(By Sri H R Gundappa, Adv.)

¶15

And :

¶16

Divisional Controller, NWKRTC Hubli Division, Hubli Respondent

¶17

(By Sri Shivakumar S Badavadagi, Adv.)

¶18

¶19

The Petition is filed under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution praying to quash the award dated 25.5.2011 – annexure F in KID 44/2009 by the Labour Court, Hubli.

¶20

The Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased

¶23

workman.

¶24

The deceased joined the respondent – Corporation on 15.7.1992. Alleging misconduct of misappropriation i.e., he failed to issue tickets to eleven passengers amounting to loss of Rs.154/-, after inquiry, he was dismissed from service on 21.8.2009. Under S.10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the workman directly approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court, after inquiry, confirmed the order of dismissal. Against the said order, on the death of the workman on 18.1.2012, petitioners who are the legal representatives of the deceased workman, are before this Court.

¶25

¶26

Heard the counsel representing the parties.

¶27

The main contention of the petitioners is, so far as the dismissal of the workman is concerned, as per the mandate of S.33 (2) (B) of the Act, as is held by the Apex Court in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd Vs Ram Gopal Sharma – AIR 2002 SC 643 , such an order of dismissal is non-est.

¶28

In that view of the matter, consequently the order passed by the Labour Court confirming the order of dismissal also would be non-est. Since the claimant is no more, the petitioners who are on record as the legal representatives of the deceased workman, are entitled for settlement of retirement benefits of the deceased but, without back wages. The respondent authority to settle the retirement benefits of the deceased workman within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

Petition is allowed.

Sd/- Judge

Vilas S/O Manohar Rao Tanni v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vilas S/O Manohar Rao Tanni v. the Divisional Controller

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

Sharavva Hanamappa Bagali Vs the Assistant Director

Vinod Gurunath Mirajkar Vs Nagappa Laxman Sontakki, by Lrs.

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

Mallikarjun Siddanagouda Goudar Vs the Divisional Controller

Dr. A.B. Khot Vs the State of Karnataka

The Management of Veerashaiva College Vs Kumari C Padmakshi