Dismissed

The Management of Nwkrtc v. Kasturavva

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2019WP/109108/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition questioned a Labour Court order directing the NWRTC to pay insurance benefits to a deceased employee's wife. The Court rejected the petition, affirming the Labour Court's view that the petitioner failed to prove it served notice on the employee or family before removing the beneficiary.

What did the court decide?

Affirmed the Labour Court order; petitioner to release the deposited sum to the respondent within six weeks.

The Management of Nwkrtc Vs Kasturavva — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.109108/2016 (S-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC BELAGAVI DIVISION REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI THE PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER NWKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE HUBBALLI. (BT SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

AND:

¶10

SMT.KASTURAVVA W/O. MALLIKARJUNAGOWDA HUDED AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O SULAKATTI ONI MUNAVALLI, TQ. SAVADATTI DIST. BELAGAVI (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

.. RESPONDENT

¶12

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:24.04.2014 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI IN APL NO.181/2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE APL.NO.181/2013 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ON THE FILE OF LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI THE COPY OF THE SAME IS AT ANNEXURE-'C' TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶13

: 2 :

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

¶17

The petitioner is the State Road Transport Corporation and the respondent is the wife of one of its employees - Mallikarjungowda Huded. The respondentCorporation is before this Court being aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, directing the petitioneremployer to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- said to have accrued to the benefit of the respondent herein under the Employees Group Insurance Scheme.

¶18

The facts in brief are that, the respondent’s

¶19

husband was employed as Conductor to the Road Transport Corporation and that he passed away on 30.01.2011 due to ill-health. That the Corporation was deducting a sum of Rs.100/- every month as contribution towards the Group Insurance Scheme from the salary of

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

the said Conductor and that during the month of December, 2010 also a sum of Rs.100/- has been deducted. That as per the circular dated 30.06.2011, the employer had directed that, in respect of the employees, who failed to attend the duty for three consecutive months, the names of such employees to be removed from the list of beneficiaries under the Scheme.

¶22

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the employee had not reported to duty for the previous three months prior to December, 2010 and that he had remained unauthorizedly absent and hence vide proceedings dated 13/24.06.2011, the name of the respondent’s husband was removed from the list of beneficiaries. On a query from this Court as to whether the same was after notice or intimation to the employee, the learned counsel for the petitioner would invite the attention of this Court to Annexure-A and on perusal, it is seen that the same is addressed to the Chief Labour and Welfare Officer. He would further elaborate that the said

¶23

: 4 :

¶24

recipient would intimate the same to the employees whose names have been deleted.

¶25

This Court is unable appreciate the said argument for the simple reason that, no material is placed by the petitioner-employer to demonstrate the said communication having been served on the employee. In the instant case, it has not been served on the husband of the respondent, much less has it been served on the respondent.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record a circular dated 03.01.2008/07.02.2008.

¶27

In the very first paragraph of the said circular, the petitioner Corporation has stated the object of the scheme. It is stated that the scheme has been floated with the intention of providing succor to the members of the employees families in the event of any untimely demise of the employees. If that be so, then the admitted case is that, the beneficiaries are the family members, on whose account Corporation was deducting the subscription

¶28

: 5 :

¶29

premium from the salary of the employees. Though the premium was deducted from out of the salary of the employees, the targeted beneficiaries were the family members. It is not the case of the petitioner that premium contributions have to be voluntarily paid by the employees.

¶30

The scheme being a beneficial and welfare scheme, it was the bounden duty of the employer to have put on notice the beneficiaries under the scheme i.e., the family members of any violation or the breach of conditions, the family members would be the real sufferers. On the other hand, it would have also acted as a motivating factor for the family members to convince the erring employee to resume duty with the employer.

¶31

Unfortunately, in the instant case, there is no material to demonstrate that the employer has either put the employee on notice or the beneficiaries of the scheme on notice. Furthermore, the Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact that a sum of Rs.100/- has been deducted

¶32

: 6 :

¶33

from the salary of the deceased employee in the month of December 2010 i.e., a month before his demise. The said fact is not disputed. On the other hand, it is sought to be explained off by contending that there was no deduction in the previous month.

¶34

Be that as it may. This Court has scrutinized the reasons ascribed and the finding of fact rendered by the Labour Court. The reasoning ascribed by the Labour Court is neither perverse nor erroneous. The finding of fact also remains undisturbed. In that view of the matter and for the forgoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not merit further consideration at the hands of this Court.

¶35

Accordingly, petition stands rejected. The order under challenge stands affirmed.

¶36

The amount in deposit shall be released to the respondent after due verification of identity in accordance with law. The remaining sum shall be released by the

¶37

: 7 :

¶38

Corporation as expeditiously as possible at any rate within an outer limit of six weeks.

¶39

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

gab

The Management of Nwkrtc v. Kasturavva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of Nwkrtc v. Kasturavva

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

Prakash S/O Amrut Hongal Vs Commissioner

Mrs. Vandana W/O. Prakash Rao Vs the Investigation Officer and

Sri. Ramesh S/O Madhusa Bhandage Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt.Kasturevva, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Saraswati W/O Ganapathi Bhat, Vs the Government of Karnataka

Andappa S/O Ningappa Malagi Vs Ramanna S/O Fakirappa Malagi