Allowed

M/S. Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. Shri D.Krishnappa

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2020WP/26335/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by Mysore Minerals Ltd., quashing an Industrial Tribunal award reinstating terminated workmen. The order relied on a coordinate bench decision holding that delay and dispute existence were not adjudicated, remitting identical public servant workmen cases for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the impugned award dated 09.01.2015 is set aside; references remitted for fresh adjudication.

M/S. Mysore Minerals Ltd. Vs Shri… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.26335/2015 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

M/S. MYSORE MINERALS LTD., (A GOVT. OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) REPRESENTED BYITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, REGISTERED OFFICE AT TTMC BUILDING ’A’ BLOCK, 5^TH FLOOR, BMTC, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI A.K.VASANTHA, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶11

AND

¶12

SHRI D.KRISHNAPPA S/O DASAPPA, AGED 64 YEARS, R/AT VIRUPAKSHAPURA VILLAGE, BELAGULI POST, NEGGEHALLI HOBLI, C.R.PATNA TALUK – 573 116 HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶13

¶14

SHRI L.SOMANNA S/O LATELATCHMA NAIK R AGED 65 YEARS R/AT YOGIMALALI VILLAGE DOMLAPURA POST THIRTHAHALLI VILLAGE – 577 432 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶15

SMT. MINUKKAMMA W/O NARAYAN R., AGED 64 YEARS, R/AT CHOWDI GADDE VILLAGE, NEAR BUKKIVARE VILLAGE, BELLUR POST, HOSANAGAR TALUK – 577 418, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶16

SHRI MADHAVA S/O LATE NARAYAN SHETTY R., AGED 63 YEARS, R/AT J.D.GANI VILLAGE, DEVANGI POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK – 577 432 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶17

SMT.VENKATAMMA W/O LATE ANAPPA GOWDA, AGED 64 YEARS, R/AT J D GANI VILLAGE DEVANGI POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK – 577 432 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶18

SHRI B.NARAYANA S/O LATE BATCHAPPA R., AGED 66 YEARS, R/AT YOGIMALALI VILLAGE DOMLAPURA POST

¶19

¶20

THIRTHAHALLI TALUK – 577 432 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶21

SHRI C.BATCHA S/O LATE C.RAMA, R/AT J.D.GANI VILLAGE, DEVANGI POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK – 577 432 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶22

SHRI BASAVAIAH S/O LATE RANGAIAH, AGED 63 YEARS, R/AT BEECHAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE VOLEGEREHALLI POST BEGUR HOBLI C R PATNAM TALUK – 573 116 HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶23

SMT.TALWAR MARAKKA W/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED 65 YEARS, R/AT MURARAPURAM VILLAGE TARANGANAGAR POST SANDUR TALUK – 583 119 BELLARY DISTRICT.

¶24

SHRI VEERUPAKSHAPPA S/O PAMPAPATHI, AGED 67 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO. 3 BHAJANGNAGAR VILLAGE & PO SANDUR TALUK – 583 119 BELLARY DISTRICT.

¶25

SHRI K GAFFAR SINCE DECEASED REP. BY SMT. KHURSHEEDA BEGUM ,

¶26

¶27

AGED 53 YEARS, R/AT KUMBESHWARA BEEDHI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK & DISTRICT, KUMSI – 577 423.

¶28

SMT.A. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE APPADORAI, AGED 61 YEARS, R/AT KALLUKOPPA VILLAGE SIRIGERE POST SHIVAMOGGA TALUK & DISTRICT – 577 201.

¶29

SMT.P.PUTTANANJAMMA W/O LATE PUTTABASAVAIAH AGED 62 YEARS, R/AT MATANGI BADAVANE KUMSI POST – 577 423 SHIVAMOGGA TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶30

SMT.K.CHENNAMMA W/O LATE K.KANNAN, AGED 63 YEARS, R/AT TUPPOORU VILLAGE SHIVAMOGGA TALUK & DISTRICT – 577 201.

¶31

SHRI NANJUNDAPPA S/O LATE RAMANNA R., AGED 67 YEARS, R/AT HAARNAHALLI VILLAGE, SHANTHINAGAR, HAARANAHALLI POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK & DISTRICT – 577 201.

¶32

SHRI K.KANNAN SINCE DECEASED REP. BY SMT.K.CHENNAMMA,

¶33

¶34

AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT TUPPOORU VILLAGE SHIVAMOGGA TALUK & DISTRICT – 577 201.

¶35

RESPONDENTS

¶36

(All RESPONDENTS ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD ANEXURE-A PASSED IN RESPECT OF C.R. NO.59, 62, 63, 64, 65,66, 68, 75/2008 & C.R NO.1, 6, 10, 1, 22, 23, 27, 28/2009 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT ON 09.01.2015 ETC.

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petitioner - the Managing Director, Mysore Minerals Limited has called in question the Award dated 09.01.2015, of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore, made in C.R.No.59/2008, C.R.NO.62/2008, C.R.No.630/2008, C.R.No.64/2008, C.R.No.65/2008, C.R.No.66/2008, C.R.No.68/2008, C.R.No.75/2008,

¶41

¶42

C.R.No.01/2009, C.R.No.06/2009, C.R.No.10/2009, CR.No.11/2009, C.R.No.22/2009, C.R.No.23/2009,

¶43

C.R.No.27/2009 and C.R.No.28/2009 vide Annexure-

¶44

A, whereby, all the 16 references were allowed, directing the Management to reinstate the respondent

¶45

Workmen into the service/designation that they were holding at the time of impugned termination/discharge from service and to continue their services till they attain the age of superannuation and pay them 30% of the salary/wages payable to them from the date of their respective references for adjudication with all other consequential benefits that they would have received in the absence of their impugned termination/discharge from service deducting the benefits already given to them.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶47

and perused the materials on record.

¶48

¶49

All the respondents – Workmen are served

¶50

and unrepresented.

¶51

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶52

submits that in all identical cases concerning similarly placed workmen of the M/s.Mysore Mineral Ltd., this Court by its order dated 14.12.2016 in W.P.No.1791917959/2015, has remitted the matter back to the hands of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore for fresh adjudication at paragraph Nos.13 and 14, on the following reasons:

¶53

“13. A careful reading of the entire impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court does not disclose the consideration of the delay in raising the dispute. It is the specific contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal that the respondents have received all the terminal benefits and once they have accepted the termination after receiving the entire terminal benefits there cannot be any dispute for re-adjudication. The said

¶54

¶55

aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Tribunal and no finding is recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the existence of dispute between the parties. Further the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence adduced and the documents produced by both parties in the proper perspective. In the absence of the same, the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law.

¶56

14. In view of the above, the point raised in the present writ petition has to be held in the negative holding that the tribunal is not justified in passing the impugned award by setting aside the termination orders passed by the disciplinary authority/petitioner and also not justified in reinstating the respondents into service and granting them consequential benefits.”

¶57

In view of the reasoning of the learned Co-

¶58

ordinate Bench of this Court and also the fact that the respondents herein are similarly situated as that of the Workmen in the aforestated writ petition, the following order:

¶59

¶60

a. The writ petition is allowed.
b. The impugned award dated 09.01.2015, of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Bangalore, made in
C.R.No.59/2008, C.R.NO.62/2008,
C.R.No.630/2008, C.R.No.64/2008,
C.R.No.65/2008, C.R.No.66/2008,
C.R.No.68/2008, C.R.No.75/2008,
C.R.No.01/2009, C.R.No.06/2009,
C.R.No.10/2009, CR.No.11/2009,
C.R.No.22/2009, C.R.No.23/2009,
C.R.No.27/2009 and C.R.No.28/2009 vide
Annexure-A, is set aside.
c. The references impugned are remitted back to
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Bengaluru for fresh
adjudication of the dispute.

¶61

¶62

d. The Tribunal shall decide the dispute after

¶63

serving a due notice, affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and pass appropriate

¶64

award in accordance with law.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

PSG*/nvj

M/S. Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. Shri D.Krishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. Shri D.Krishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sobha Sunflower Owners Association Vs the Commissioner

Sri R Ravindra Vs the Management of M/S Rane Engine Valve Ltd.

K Sampangiram Reddy Vs the Commissioner

The Commissioner Vs Mrs.Asumptha Maia D Souza

The Commissioner the Corporation of City of Vs Smt.K.v.Kalyani

Dr Srihari S R Vs the State of Karnataka