Dismissed

The Commissioner of Sericulture Dept of Sericultur v. Sripat S/O.Laxman Hattikar Sericulture Labour

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2017WP/65671/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A State petition sought to quash a Labour Court award requiring retrenchment compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no ground to interfere with the award despite the claimant's long delay.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; State directed to pay Rs.50,000/- within four weeks or pay 9% interest per annum.

The Commissioner of Sericulture Dept of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH 2017

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.65671/2010(L-TER)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE COMMISSIONER OF SERICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF SERICULTURE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.

¶8

THE MANAGEMENT OF SENIOR SERICULTURE INSPECTOR, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, C.R.C, KHANAPURA, DIST:BELGAUM

¶9

... PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI.M. KUMAR, AGA)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SHRI. SRIPAT S/O LAXMAN HATTIKAR SERICULTURE LABOUR, REPTD. BY SRI. M.M. JOSHI, VICE PRESIDENT, THE KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT DAILY WAGE EMPLOEES FEDERATION, SHETTAR BUILDING, HOSUR, HUBLI-21

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. H.R. GUNDAPPA, ADV.)

¶15

Date of Order: 10.03.2017 in WP No.65671/2010(L-TER) The Commissioner of Sericulture & Another Vs. Shri. Sripat S/o Laxman Hattikar

¶16

��

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 5.12.2009 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN REFERENCE NO.60/1996 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Mr.M. Kumar, AGA for the petitioners. Mr. H.R. Gundappa , Adv. for the respondent.

¶21

This writ petition has been filed by the State under

¶22

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by

¶23

the award passed by the learned Addl. Labour Court, Hubli, in

¶24

Reference No.60/1996 (Sri. Sripat S/o Laxman Hattikar Vs.

¶25

The Management of Senior Sericulture Inspector and Another ), dated 5.12.2009.

¶26

By the said award, the learned District Judge and Presiding Officer, Addl. Labour Court, Hubli, found that the termination of the respondent labour on 1.10.1983 was contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act

¶27

Date of Order: 10.03.2017 in WP No.65671/2010(L-TER) The Commissioner of Sericulture & Another Vs. Shri. Sripat S/o Laxman Hattikar

¶28

��

¶29

(for brevity, ‘the Act’), since in the immediately preceding year from 30.09.1982 till 1.10.1983, the respondent had actually worked for 207 days and adding thereof to general holidays and Sundays in that year, the number of working days would count to more than 240 days and since he was terminated from the service orally without complying the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, the Labour Court instead of reinstating the respondent workman back in service, in lieu of that, directed for payment of lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent workman by the impugned order.

¶30

Learned AGA, Mr. M. Kumar, appearing for the

¶31

petitioners-State submitted that the said impugned order was passed by the learned Labour Court, after a remand of case by the High Court in WP No.43744/2004(L-TER) with a direction to the respondent to implead the Director of Sericulture as a party to the proceedings and to dispose of the case on merits.

¶32

Upon such remand, the Labour Court has passed the impugned order. He also submitted that after the impugned retrenchment

¶33

Date of Order: 10.03.2017 in WP No.65671/2010(L-TER) The Commissioner of Sericulture & Another Vs. Shri. Sripat S/o Laxman Hattikar

¶34

��

¶35

order on 1.10.1983, the respondent workman had approached

¶36

initially the Labour Court in the year 1996, after a gap of 13 years by Reference No.60/1996 and such a belated claim ought to have been rejected by the learned Labour Court.

¶37

On the other hand, Mr. H.R. Gundappa, learned counsel for the respondent workman, urged that since the illegality of the retrenchment is not challenged and the delay in such case should be deemed to have been condoned. The compensation in lieu of reinstatement was awarded by the learned Labor Court does not call for any interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition filed by the State deserves to be dismissed.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,

¶39

this Court is satisfied that the relief given by the learned Labour Court by the impugned order on 5.12.2009 by awarding a lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent workman in lieu of reinstatement, in view of the admittedly illegal retrenchment of the respondent workman which was

¶40

Date of Order: 10.03.2017 in WP No.65671/2010(L-TER) The Commissioner of Sericulture & Another Vs. Shri. Sripat S/o Laxman Hattikar

¶41

��

¶42

contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act,

¶43

this Court does not find any ground or substantial basis in the writ petition filed by the State to quash such an award of the Labour Court.

¶44

Even though it may be said that there was a delay of about 13 years on the part of the respondent workman in approaching the learned Labour Court in the first instance in the year 1996, having suffered two rounds of litigation already by now and this relief having been given to him at a belated stage in the year 2009, no interference is called for in the impugned order. This Court is satisfied that the writ petition filed by the

¶45

State deserves to be dismissed and the impugned award of the learned Labour Court dated 5.12.2009 deserves to be implemented forthwith.

¶46

Accordingly, the writ petition of the

¶47

petitioners/State is dismissed with no order as to costs, with a direction to the petitioners/State to pay the lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent workman, within

¶48

Date of Order: 10.03.2017 in WP No.65671/2010(L-TER) The Commissioner of Sericulture & Another Vs. Shri. Sripat S/o Laxman Hattikar

¶49

��

¶50

a period of four weeks from today, otherwise, it will bear the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court, i.e.5.12.2009 till the date of actual payment to the respondent

¶51

workman.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

JTR

The Commissioner of Sericulture Dept of Sericultur v. Sripat S/O.Laxman Hattikar Sericulture Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Sericulture Dept of Sericultur v. Sripat S/O.Laxman Hattikar Sericulture Labour

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

M/S Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited Vs Sri K Shivaramappa

The Management of Sri. Dharmastala Vs Smt. Nagamma Alagawadi

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii Vs M/S.Kle Societys College of Pharmacy

Mahesh Channappa Huddar Vs State of Karnataka

The Divisional Controller, Vs S G Kulkarni

M/S Gowri Infraengineers Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S P G Setty Construction