Allowed

M/S Intuit Technology Services Private Limited v. Sri Vijaya Ganapati

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2020WA/458/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two Judge Bench allowed an appeal filed by an employer against an interim order directing backwage deposit. The High Court held that since the Labour Court rejected the reinstatement reference without ordering reinstatement, no backwages were payable under Section 17B, making the interim direction improper. Liberty was reserved to seek appropriate relief if reinstatement is eventually ordered.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order directing deposit of backwages set aside; Writ Appeal allowed; Liberty reserved to respondent to claim relief under Section 17B of Industrial Disputes Act.

M/S Intuit Technology Services Private Limited Vs… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶8

W.A.No.458 OF 2020 (L - TER)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S Intuit Technology Services Private Limited. Campurs:4A, PRL Tech Park, Eco Space, 7^th Floor, Bellandur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 103. Represented by its Authorised Representative Mr.Sundar V … Appellant

¶11

(By Sri. Ajesh Kumar.S, Advocate) AND:

¶12

Sri. Vijaya Ganapati, Son of Sri. Rangapathi, Aged about 47 years, Residing at No.46, Alkapoor Township, Sector II/B, Pappalaguda, Hyderabad – 500 075. Telangana … Respondent

¶13

(By Sri. Subba Rao, Senior Counsel for Miss. Maitreyi Krishnan, Advocate)

¶14

This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order

¶15

¶16

dated 22/07/2020 passed by the Hon’ble learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.874/2020 and etc.

¶17

This appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, NAGARATHNA, J., delivered the following:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

We have heard Sri Ajesh Kumar S., learned counsel

¶20

for the appellant, Sri K.Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel for Miss Maitreyi Krishnan, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶21

Appellant is aggrieved by the interim order dated 22.07.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.874/2020 connected with W.P.No.7022/2020.

¶22

By the said order, the learned Single Judge has issued the following directions:

¶23

“(i) The respondent-employer is directed to deposit backwages from 02.08.2012 till date with the Registry of this Court, who shall in turn deposit the same in interest bearing fixed deposit for a period of one year and multiples thereof.

¶24

¶25

(ii) The petitioner-employee is directed to furnish his income tax returns from the financial year 2012 till date to show that the petitioner has not been gainfully employed from that date till now.

¶26

(iii) On furnishing of the said income tax returns by the petitioner, the question of disbursal of amount, if any, would be considered by this Court with adequate opportunity to the respondent to file its objections or statement insofar as the income tax returns filed by the petitioner before this Court.

¶27

(iv) The deposit of backwages shall be made within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner is at liberty to obtain and furnish a copy of the certified copy of this order on the counsel for the respondent as also on the respondent.

¶28

(v) The petitioner is directed to file income tax returns from the year 2012 till date within a period of six weeks from

¶29

¶30

today. There shall be no need of receipt of certified copy by the petitioner for compliance or the above.”

¶31

Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent herein was an employee of the appellant – Company. He is stated to have been terminated from service with effect from 16.08.2012. The said termination was assailed by the respondent by raising an Industrial Dispute No.21/2013 before the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru. By award dated 25.11.2019, the Labour Court rejected the reference under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for the sake of brevity). Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein preferred his writ petition. The appellant herein also filed its writ petition being aggrieved by the finding that the termination of the respondent was illegal.

¶32

In the writ petitions, the impugned interim order has been passed. Hence, this appeal.

¶33

¶34

Appellant’s counsel submitted that when the reference itself has been rejected and no order of reinstatement has been made by the Labour Court, the impugned order which is in the nature of an order passed under Section 17B of the Act could not have been made. He submitted that if the respondent is successful in his writ petition and reinstatement is ordered by this Court, then the appellant would be liable to pay the backwages in accordance with the directions to be issued by this Court. Therefore, at this stage, the direction to deposit the backwages from 02.08.2012 up to date with the registry of this Court was not warranted.

¶35

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, however, supported the impugned order and contended that there is a categorical finding that the termination of the respondent was illegal by the Labour Court. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to reinstatement as well as backwages and that is precisely the prayer which was sought for by the respondent in

¶36

¶37

the writ petition. However, the learned Single Judge has moulded the relief and has granted the directions impugned in this writ appeal. That the learned Single Judge has considered the balance of convenience on both sides and has granted the order which would not call for any interference in this appeal and that there is no merit in this appeal.

¶38

We have already noted the directions of the learned Single Judge impugned in this writ appeal. The detailed narration of facts and contentions would not call for reiteration.

¶39

On a perusal of the impugned award, it is noted that the termination of the respondent was held to be not justified. However, the reference itself was rejected. In the circumstances, there has been no order of reinstatement made by the Labour Court. If any order had to be made under Section 17B of the Act, then the necessary precondition is that there must be a direction for reinstatement of any workman, in which case, full

¶40

¶41

backwages last drawn by him inclusive of any allowances admissible to him under any Rule shall be payable in terms of said Section 17B of the Act.

¶42

In the instant case, there being no direction for reinstatement, the payment of any backwages did not arise at all. However, having regard to the interim prayer sought for by the respondent, the learned Single Judge has directed the employer to deposit the backwages from 02.08.2012 before this Court. We think that the said order was not just and proper in the instant case since the reference itself was rejected by the Labour Court. Also, it is not the case of the respondent that the appellant is not solvent enough to pay the backwages in case. The respondent is successful in the matter if any such orders is passed. Also it is not known as to whether the respondent is earning any income from any other employment subsequent to his termination from the appellant company. In the

¶43

¶44

circumstances, the impugned order and the directions of the learned Single Judge are set aside.

¶45

The Writ Appeal is allowed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent to seek relief in terms of Section 17B of the Act, if so advised and if the same is applicable in the present case.

¶46

In view of the disposal of the appeal, I.A.1/2020

stands disposed.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

PKS

M/S Intuit Technology Services Private Limited v. Sri Vijaya Ganapati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Intuit Technology Services Private Limited v. Sri Vijaya Ganapati

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

Smt B Anitha @ Harini Vs D C Girisha

V Gayathri Vs Ramesh Raju

Smt D S Sheelavathi Vs B S Vedamurthy

Sri K S Jagadish Reddy Vs Smt Susheela

Sadashiva K Amin Vs Vijaya Lakshmi

Smt. Vijayalaxmi Vs Sri Sadashiva K Amin