This single-judge High Court bench dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash a labour Court award. The Court held that while the labour Court lacked procedural clarity on delay, the rejection on merits due to absence of employment evidence was correct.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS
WRIT PETITION No. 80381/2012 (L-TER)
BETWEEN : --------------VENKANNA S/O.KRISHNA AGE 49 YEARS OCC.NIL, R/O.DEVATAKAL TQ. SHORAPUR DIST. YADGIR. … PETITIONER (BY Sri.P VILAS KUMAR AND Sri. SHIVALOK N TALWAR, ADVS.) AND : --------
2
(BY Sri. SANJAY M JOSHI, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 18.04.2011 IN REF. No. 88/2010 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING
O R D E R
In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 18.04.2011 in reference No. 88/2010 passed by the labour Court at Gulbarga.
of respondent No. 1. Without notice, without enquiry and without complying the provisions of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short `the Act’) the petitioner was illegally terminated in the year 1993. Aggrieved by this order of termination the petitioner raised a dispute under section 10(4)(a) of the Act in I.D. No. 102/2002. This dispute came to be allowed by the labour Court by passing an award. Further this Court in a
3
writ proceedings reversed the award passed by the labour Court on the ground that the same was filed beyond the statutory period of 6 months under Section 10(4)(a) of the Act. Thereafter the petitioner approached the Government and the same ended in referring the dispute to the labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 22.07.2010. The labour Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence passed the impugned award rejecting the reference. Hence, this writ petition.
papers.
4
respondent No. 1. Neither in the claim petition nor in the evidence the petitioner has stated in what capacity he was working in the office of respondent No.1, what was the salary paid to him, under whom he was working and who terminated him. In the absence of any such material the labour Court rightly rejected the claim of the petition. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
to file vakalath within three weeks from today.
Sd/JUDGE.
LRS.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the labour Court's award dismissing the reference due to delay in raising the dispute under Section 10(4)(a).
Whether the labour Court's dismissal of the reference was justified for lack of evidence regarding the petitioner's employment terms and salary.
Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Venkanna
Asst. Executive Engineer, O & M Subdivision No.10, KBJNL, Hasanapur
Executive Engineer O & M Subdivision No.10, KBJNL, Bhimarayangudi
Managing Director KBJNL
H.N. Nagamohan Das
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
