Allowed

The Management of Nwkrtc, v. Sri.Nagappa Manappa Koliwad

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2017WP/60320/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Management of NWKRTC challenged an award dated 30.04.2010 by the Addl. Labour Court, Hubli, which fixed the workman's dues at Rs. 1,08,720/- against higher claims by the employer and the workman. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned award, and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for a reasoned adjudication considering the rival claims of ar

What did the court decide?

The impugned award dated 30.04.2010 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Addl. Labour Court, Hubli, to decide the application for payment of arrears afresh after considering the rival claims of

The Management of Nwkrtc, Vs Sri.Nagappa… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH 2017

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.60320/2011(L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC, BELGAUM DIVISION, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BELGAUM DIVISION, BELGAUM, PRESENTLY REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICES, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580030.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. SUNITHA P. KALASOOR, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

NAGAPPA MANAPPA KOLIWAD, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC:EX.CONDUCTOR, R/O KITTUR, TQ:BAILHONGAL, DIST:BELGAUM.

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI.RAVI HEGDE, ADV.)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE AWARD DATED 30.04.2010 PASSED BY

¶15

Date of Order: 17.03.2017 in WP No.60320/2011(L-KSRTC) ��

¶16

��

¶17

THE ADDL. LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN APPLN.NO.8/2009 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-D, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Mrs. Sunitha P. Kalasoor, Adv. for the petitioner-NWKRTC. Mr. Ravi Hegde, Adv. for the respondent-Workman.

¶21

The petitioner NWKRTC has filed this writ

¶22

petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Addl. Labour Court, Hubli, on 30.04.2010 in Application No.8/2009 filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), Nagappa S/o Manappa Koliwad Vs. The Management of NWKRTC, awarding a sum of Rs.1,08,720/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of application till payment.

¶23

The relevant portion of the impugned order is quoted below for ready reference:-

¶24

8. Point No.1: It is not in dispute that the claimant was dismissed from service by the respondent

¶25

Date of Order: 17.03.2017 in WP No.60320/2011(L-KSRTC) ��

¶26

��

¶27

for which claimant raised an industrial dispute in Ref.No.47/1995 before the Addl. Labour Court, Hubli. As per order dated 27.12.1997, Additional Labour Court, Hubli allowed the reference in part and directed the respondent to take back the claimant in to service, claimant is not entitled for backwages and continuity of service, than the claimant submitted joining report as per Ex.A.2 dated 9.4.1998. The respondent did not allow him to join the duty, but filed W.P.No. 27645/98, which was dismissed. The respondent filed W.A.No. 3627/1999, which was also dismissed. Ex.A.4 is the another representation given by the applicant seeking permission to report for duty dated 16.3.1999

¶28

9. It is admitted by R.W.1 in the evidence that there was no stay order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, when the W.P and W.A were pending, thereby the respondent not implemented the order as per award Ex.A.1, it is dated 27.12.1997 and the applicant report for duty only on 6.3.2000. In the circumstance for the non compliance of terms of award the

¶29

Date of Order: 17.03.2017 in WP No.60320/2011(L-KSRTC) ��

¶30

��

¶31

respondent is liable to pay the wages to the applicant from 27.12.1997 to 6.3.2000.

¶32

10. Applicant submitted calculation sheet along with application, wherein the applicant has claimed amount from January 1997 to March 2000, but the date of award is 27.12.1997, thereby the calculation made by the applicant can not be granted in respect of wages from January 1997 to 27^th December 1997. So from January 1998 till February end 2000, the applicant is entitled for wages, the respondent is also liable to pay 5 days wages in the month of December 1997 and 5 day wages in the month of march 2000, thereby totally the applicant is entitled wages for 26 months 10 days.

¶33

11.The counsel representing the applicant has submitted fresh memo of calculation claiming wages from 27^th December, 1997 upto 5^th march 2000 and claimed a sum of Rs.1,08,720/and also to pay a sum of Rs.29,556/- towards basis D.A. from January, 1999 to December 1999. The Court is unable to understand what is the claim relating to basic D.A. from January 1999 to December 1999, thereby the Court

¶34

Date of Order: 17.03.2017 in WP No.60320/2011(L-KSRTC) ��

¶35

��

¶36

finds that respondent is liable to pay wages for 26 months 10 days i.e. Rs.1,08,720/- only. Hence, point No.1 is answered partly in the alternative.

¶37

12.Point No.2: In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, the applicant is entitled for wages for a period of 26 months 10 days amounting to Rs.1,08,720/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of application. Hence, the following:

¶38

a. Application is allowed in part.

¶39

b. Respondent is hereby directed to pay Rs.1,08,720/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of application till payment.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Sunitha P.

¶41

Kalasoor, submitted that while determining the said amount, the

¶42

Labour Court ignored the objections filed by the Management vide Annexure-B along with the memo of calculation at Annexure-C, according to which, the said arrears payable to the workman is only to the tune of Rs.83,060/- as against a sum of

¶43

Rs.1,70,542/- claimed in the claim petition filed by the respondent workman. Therefore, she prays that the matter

¶44

Date of Order: 17.03.2017 in WP No.60320/2011(L-KSRTC) ��

¶45

��

¶46

deserves to be remitted back to the learned Labour Court, considering the objections filed by the employer and re-decide the application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act.

¶47

On the other hand, Sri. Ravi Hegde, learned counsel for the respondent workman has submitted that in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 25.04.2016, the amount already deposited by the petitioner NWKRTC has already been withdrawn by the respondent workman, since he has retired from the service of the petitioner NWKRTC. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the case back to the learned Labour Court below.

¶48

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the learned Labour Court ought to have considered the objections filed by the petitioner and after assigning the proper reasons only, the findings and determination under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act, could have been made. Difference in the two figures between in the claim of workman and another in the statement given by the employer is clear and even though not a vast difference, it is more

¶49

Date of Order: 17.03.2017 in WP No.60320/2011(L-KSRTC) ��

¶50

��

¶51

a question of the learned Labour Court to pass appropriate

¶52

reasoned order and for which it is required to consider the objections filed by the employer.

¶53

The learned Labour Court, from the impugned order in the present case before this Court, does not seem to

¶54

have considered the objections and, therefore, the matter is required to be remanded back to the learned Labour Court for re-determination of the amount under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act.

¶55

Accordingly, this writ petition of NWKRTC is

¶56

allowed .

¶57

The impugned award dated 30.04.2010 passed by

¶58

the learned Addl. Labour Court, Hubli in Appln.No.8/2009 is set-aside.

¶59

The matter is remitted back to the learned Labour

¶60

Court, Hubli, to decide the said application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act afresh after considering the rival claims of

¶61

Date of Order: 17.03.2017 in WP No.60320/2011(L-KSRTC) ��

¶62

��

¶63

both the parties with respect to the arrears to be payable to the respondent workman under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act.

¶64

The parties may appear, without any further notice in the first instance on 24.04.2017 before learned Labour Court, Hubli, and the learned Labour Court is expected to decide the case again, within six month from today.

¶65

It is made clear that the amount already disbursed

¶66

to the workman in the aforesaid interim order dated 25.04.2016 passed by the co-ordinate Bench, shall not be recovered from him until fresh order is made by the learned Labour Court and the final position with regard to the recovery or there being no requirement of recovery will depend upon the fresh adjudication by the learned Labour Court within six months as stated above.

¶67

No order as to costs.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

JTR

The Management of Nwkrtc, v. Sri.Nagappa Manappa Koliwad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of Nwkrtc, v. Sri.Nagappa Manappa Koliwad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Sadalga Urban Souharda Sahakari, Bank Niyamit, Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Office

The Sadalga Urban Souharda Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

The K. L. E. Society, Vs Sri. Ganapati Ramachandra Buwa

Sri.T. Narayan Deceased Rep.by His Legal Heirs Vs the Management of Nwkrtc

Maheshkumar S/O.Shivaputrappa Bannur Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Irawwa D/O Channavirappa Sudi, Vs M/S Krishna Spinners