Quashed

Praveen S/O Appasaheb Kanagale v. the Municipal Commissioner

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2021WP/104553/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Karnataka quashed a Labour Court award that compensated a contract worker for his termination without reinstatement. Relying on Raj Kumar and distinguishing Gitam Singh, the Court held a contract worker with nine years of service was entitled to reinstatement and back wages as the employer failed to prove surplusage.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned Labour Court award and directed the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner as Water Supply Operator on contract basis and pay 50% back wages with all consequential benefits.

Praveen S/O Appasaheb Kanagale Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.104553/2015 (L - TER)

¶7

Between

¶8

Praveen s/o Appasaheb Kanagale, Age 31 years Occ: Nil, r/o Nippani Tq: Chikkodi, Dist: Belagavi. ...Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri Pruthviraj Hittalamani for Sri Jagadish Patil, Advocates)

¶10

A n d

¶11

The Municipal Commissioner City Municipal Council, Nippani Tq: Chikkodi, Dist: Belgaum.

¶12

The Director of Municipal Administration, M S Building Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluru. ... Respondents

¶13

(By Sri Vinayak S Kulkarni, AGA for R2, Sri R K Kulkarni, Advocate for R1)

¶14

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the award dated

¶15

¶16

26.3.2014 passed by the Addl. Labour Court, Hubballi in K.I.D.No.71/2013 vide Annexure-A and etc.,. This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in`B’ group, this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition is filed against the award and order dated

¶19

26.3.2014 passed in KID No.71/2013 at Annexure-A by the Additional Labour Court, Hubballi.

¶20

Petitioner was appointed on contract basis as Water Supply Operator on 10.8.2003. On 16.8.2012, when the petitioner reported for duty with respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 denied him the duty. Hence, petitioner filed a conciliation petition before the concerned officer on 24.4.2013 on the ground of termination of his services, which was in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since the Conciliation Authority did not give any intimation to the petitioner, petitioner approached the Labour Court under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes (Central Amendment) Act, 2010 praying to set aside the termination order passed by respondent No.1 on 16.8.2012.

¶21

¶22

Before the Labour Court, respondents though served

¶23

with notices remained absent.

¶24

Petitioner produced Ex.W6 – copy of identity card issued to petitioner by respondent No.1 which discloses that the petitioner was working as a Water Supply Operator. The Labour Court considering Ex.W6 has held that petitioner was working with respondent No.1 on contract basis as Water Supply Operator. Respondents having not appeared before the Labour Court and having not filed any objection denying the claim of petitioner, the Labour Court taking into consideration the evidence of record, which remained unchallenged, held that termination of petitioner is in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. Accordingly, the Labour Court set aside the termination order dated 16.8.2012 passed by respondent No.1, but however, directed respondent No.1 to pay Rs.50,000/towards compensation to the petitioner instead of reinstating him into service by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation & another –

¶25

¶26

vs- Gitam Singh reported in 2013 II LLJ 141. Hence, this writ petition.

¶27

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner was appointed on contract basis for Water Supply Operator on 10.8.2003 and he had worked for nearly nine years. He was terminated from service on 16.8.2012 in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. He submits that the judgment relied upon by the Labour Court is not applicable to the facts of the case since in that case, workman was appointed on daily wage basis and had worked for only eight months and in that context, the Apex Court awarded compensation. In support of his submission, that petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar –vs- Director of Education and others passed in Civil Appeal No.1020/2011.

¶28

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that petitioner was appointed as out source employee. Hence, he is not entitled for reinstatement. The Labour Court has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- instead of

¶29

¶30

reinstating the petitioner into service. Hence, he submits that writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. Learned AGA justifies the impugned order passed by the Labour Court.

¶31

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

Petitioner was appointed on contract basis as Water Supply Operator on 10.8.2003. The fact that petitioner was appointed on contract basis is also reflected in the proceedings of respondent No.1. Perusal of proceedings indicates that minimum wage register maintained by respondent No.1 would indicate that proposal was sent by respondent No.1 to fix the minimum wages of petitioner, who was appointed on contract basis. In turn, respondent No.2 has opined that the wages payable to out source employee may be paid to the petitioner, who was appointed on contract basis. Hence, petitioner who was appointed on contract basis on 10.8.2003 was terminated on 16.8.2012 after having worked for more than nine years.

¶33

¶34

The Labour Court awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- to

¶35

the petitioner instead of reinstating the petitioner into service by relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Assistant Engineer (supra). In the said case before the Apex Court, the workman was appointed on daily wage basis and he had worked for a period of only eight months. In that context, the Apex Court set aside the order of reinstatement and compensation was awarded to the workman.

¶36

The Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) has held that the Management having not produced any evidence on record to show that retrenchment of the appellant was necessary as he had become surplus and the order of termination was ordered in the year 2003 and he is unemployed till date, and he was not gainfully employed during that period is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and other consequential benefits in view of law laid down by the Apex court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase –vs- Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyala reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324. In the instant case, petitioner was appointed on contract basis and he had worked for more

¶37

¶38

than nine years as on the date of termination. Respondent No.1 has not produced any evidence to show that the retrenchment of petitioner was necessary as he had become surplus. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed against sanctioned vacant post by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has not placed any material to show that petitioner was gainfully employed during the period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of order passed by the Labour Court. The decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) is squarely applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the order of Labour Court refusing to reinstate into service is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i) Writ petition stands disposed of;

¶41

ii) The impugned award and order dated 26.3.2014 passed in KID No.71/2013 at Annexure-A by the Additional Labour Court, Hubballi, is quashed;

¶42

¶43

iii) Respondent No.1 is directed to reinstate the petitioner as Water Supply Operator on contract basis and to pay 50% of back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The back wages shall be computed on the basis of periodical revision of wages/salary. The said exercise shall be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Bkm

Praveen S/O Appasaheb Kanagale v. the Municipal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen S/O Appasaheb Kanagale v. the Municipal Commissioner

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

Sri.Basettappa S/O Veerappa Vs the National Highway Authorities

Shashikant S/O Pandurang Chandgadkar, Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sandeep S/O Laxman Naik Vs Karnataka Housing Board

Shankar S/O Basappa Jeer @ Hoogar Vs the Tasildhar

The President Vs the State of Karnataka

The President Vs the State of Karnataka