Dismissed

The Divisional Controller v. Prakash S/O Shivayogappa Chittaragi

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2020WP/104400/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Divisional Controller of NWKRTC challenged a Labour Court order directing payment of back wages. The High Court held that as the corporation filed the calculation memo under which the award was passed, it cannot now claim error, leading to rejection of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected; Labour Court award directing payment of Rs.2,85,912/- stands confirmed.

The Divisional Controller Vs Prakash S/O… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF JANUARY, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO.104400/2018 (L-KSRTC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, BAGALKOT DIVISION, NAVANAGAR BAGALKOT, PRESENTLY REP. BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030.

¶7

... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. P.N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND

¶10

PRAKASH S/O SHIVAYOGAPPA CHITTARAGI AGE:60 YEARS, OCC:CONDUCTOR, R/O NEAR BASAVAESHWAR KHANAWALI, JANATA BAZAR BAGALKOTE.

¶11

... RESPONDENT

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE IN APPLICATION NO.2/2017 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-C.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner/NWKRTC(Corporation) is before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 24.03.2018 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalakote in Application No.33(C)(2)/2/2017 by which the petitioner/Corporation is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,85,912/- to the respondent/employee with interest at 9% per annum from the date of application till realization.

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein was an employee of the petitioner/Corporation working as a Conductor. The respondent was dismissed from service w.e.f. 8.6.2002 which order came to be challenged by the respondent/employee in KID No.48/2002 before the Labour Court, Vijayapura. The said order of dismissal was set-aside by award dated 25.09.2007. While

¶18

¶19

setting aside the order of dismissal, the labour Court granted 50% backwages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. The said order of the Labor Court dated 25.09.2007 was challenged before this Court in WP No.30559/2008 which came to be dismissed by order dated 20.7.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/Corporation preferred Writ Appeal No.30892/2012 before the Division Bench of this Court which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 9.4.2013. Thereafter, the respondent/employee filed an application No.49/2014 claiming 50% backwages which was allowed by the labour Court. The present application was filed by the respondent/employee claiming salary/wages from the date of award i.e. 25.09.2007 till his reinstatement i.e. 1.1.2015. The labour Court after enquiry found that the respondent/employee is entitled for salary/wages for the period from 25.09.2007 till 1.1.2015. The said

¶20

¶21

order dated 24.03.2018 is impugned in this writ petition.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶23

petitioner/Corporation and perused the material placed on record.

¶24

respondent/employee was dismissed from service on 8.6.2002 and the same was challenged before the labour Court. The labour Court by award dated 25.09.2007 set-aside the order of dismissal granting 50% backwages with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. The said order of the labour Court was challenged by the petitioner/Corporation before this Court in WP No.30559/2008 which came to

¶25

be dismissed by order dated 20.07.2011. Against which, the petitioner/Corporation preferred Writ Appeal No.30892/2012 which also came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 9.4.2013. The respondent-employee had filed present

¶26

¶27

application claiming salary/wages from the date of the award i.e. 25.09.2007 till his reinstatement i.e. 1.1.2015.

¶28

Admittedly, even though the labour Court set-aside the order of dismissal on 25.09.2007, the respondent-employee was reinstated into service only on 1.1.2015. Admittedly, the respondent/employee would be entitled for wages/salary for the said period. Before the labour Court, the petitioner/Corporation as well as the respondent/employee filed memo of calculations. The labour Court found that the memo of calculation filed by the respondent/employee was without necessary deductions and found that the memo of calculations filed by the petitioner/Corporation, Ex.R2 is proper. Accordingly, based on the memo of calculation at Ex.R2 filed by the petitioner/Corporation, the Labour Court directed the petitioner/Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.2,85,912/- being salary/wages for the period from 25.09.2007 to 1.1.2015. Having filed the

¶29

¶30

memo of calculation before the Labour Court at Ex.R2, now it is not open for the petitioner/Corporation to turn around and say that the memo of calculation filed by the petitioner was not correct. Hence, I find no error or illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court in directing the petitioner/Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.2,85,912/- as salary/wages for the period from 25.09.2007 to 1.1.2015 based on the memo of calculation filed by the petitioner/Corporation.

¶31

Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

JTR

The Divisional Controller v. Prakash S/O Shivayogappa Chittaragi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Prakash S/O Shivayogappa Chittaragi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand S/O. Ira Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr.K.C. Tarachand S/O K.N. Chokla Naik Vs the Vice Chancellor

Smt.Mallamma W/O Mallayya Karadannavar @ Kadatal Vs Sri.Mahadevayya S/O Basayya Karadannavar @ Kadatal

Smt.Soujanya W/O Raghavanka K S Vs Assistant Commissioner

Suvarna W/O. Late Gurubasayya Charantimath Vs the Nwkrtc

Sri.Shivakumar S/O Late Virupaxappa Garag Vs the Union of India