Dismissed

M Ramaiah v. Ganganna Gowda B C

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2022CRL.RP/1358/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The High Court upheld the trial Court's decision to dismiss a complaint under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, finding that evidence showed the employer had complied with the Labour Court award by making payments to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed; observation that petitioner may approach civil court under Section 33(C) for remaining dues.

M Ramaiah Vs Ganganna Gowda B C — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1358 OF 2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M. Ramaiah S/o Madaiah, Aged about 68 years, R/at D No.452, New Extension, N.R.Mohalla, Mysuru-07.

¶8

…Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri M.Ramaiah, Party-in-Person)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Ganganna Gowda B.C., KSRTC, The Divisional Controller, Central Division, K.H.Road, Shanthi Nagar, Bengaluru-560027.

¶12

Karumbaiah P.B., The Division Controller, KSRTC., Mangaluru Division, (South Canara) Mangaluru-575001.

¶13

…Respondents (By Sri B.S.Srinivas, Advocate for

¶14

Sri B.L.Sanjeev, Advocate for R1 and R2)

¶15

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under

¶16

Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to re call for the entire records from in the Additional City and Sessions Judge CCH-65, Session Court of the VI ACMM

¶17

:: 2 ::

¶18

at Bengaluru City and further be pleased reference No.46/1997 and 83/1998 Crl.A.No.507/2016, IV Additional City Civil Sessions Judge (CCH-65), Bengaluru City, pass the orders setting aside the judgment and order passed on 04.10.2018, Crl.A.No.507/2016 by allowing this appeal.

¶19

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for final hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard the revision petitioner Sri M.Ramaiah, who appeared as party-in-person and Sri B.S.Srinivas, Advocate on behalf of Sri B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶22

The facts are that the petitioner raised

¶23

two labour disputes in the Labour Court, Bengaluru on two references in 46/1997 and 83/1998 in connection with his dismissal from service with KSRTC. The petitioner was working as a conductor, and as he contested in the elections held to the Bengaluru City Corporation, he was removed from service. The Labour Court passed awards in both the cases and ordered the KSRTC for reinstating

¶24

:: 3 ::

¶25

him by extending all monetary benefits. On the allegation that the KSRTC did not comply with the awards, the petitioner approached the Court of Magistrate with a complaint for the offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶26

The petitioner adduced evidence as PW1 and produced five documents Ex.P.1 to P.5 for proving his case and that two witnesses DW1 and DW2 adduced evidence from the respondents’ side. They also produced 18 documents as per Ex.D.1 to D.18. The respondents, representing the KSRTC took up a defence that the outstanding money payable to the petitioner had been paid.

¶27

The trial Court analyzed the evidence and came to conclusion that the respondents had made payment in compliance of the award passed by the Labour Court. The Magistrate placed reliance on Ex.D.6, 14 and 15 in particular to come to this

¶28

:: 4 ::

¶29

conclusion. The petitioner’s complaint came to be dismissed.

¶30

Then the petitioner preferred an appeal

¶31

under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., to the Court of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, aggrieved by the judgment of the Magistrate and since the appeal was also dismissed by judgment dated 04.10.2018, the petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition.

¶32

Sri M.Ramaiah, the petitioner, who

¶33

appeared in-person submits that the respondents have not honoured the award, that he has not been

¶34

paid a single pie so far and he has to receive Rs.8,50,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum. In this view, it is his submission that this revision petition is to be allowed.

¶35

On the other hand, Sri B.S.Srinivas,

¶36

learned counsel for the respondents submits that, KSRTC has made payments to the petitioner. Ex.D.6

¶37

:: 5 ::

¶38

is the calculation sheet, which shows the

¶39

calculation in regard to the amount payable to the petitioner pursuant to his reinstatement. Ex.D.7 is the document which shows that the petitioner was required to issue a receipt for having received Rs.1,45,559/- and Rs.50,816/-. These payments were made pursuant to the Labour Court’s order. He refers to Ex.D.9 and submits that these sums were credited to the account of the petitioner. Therefore offence under Section 29 is not committed. In case the petitioner thinks that still any sum is due to him, he has to take action in accordance with Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Both the Courts have rightly come to conclusion to dismiss the complaint. There is no infirmity in it and therefore the revision petition is to be dismissed.

¶40

I have considered the submissions made

¶41

by the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶42

:: 6 ::

¶43

The judgment of the trial Court clearly

¶44

shows that it has assessed the evidence of all the witnesses and the documents produced by either side. The petitioner’s evidence does not disclose that an amount of Rs.8,50,000/- is payable to him by the KSRTC. Ex.P.1 and 2 are the certified copies of the awards passed by the Labour Court, Ex.P.3 is a show cause notice issued by the Labour Department to the Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Ex.P.4 is another show cause notice issued by the Labour Court to the Divisional Controller, KSRTC, as to why action should not be taken for non compliance of the award passed by the Labour Court. Ex.P.5 is an order passed by the Labour Commissioner according permission to the petitioner for taking action against the respondents under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶45

In the cross examination of PW1, it was

¶46

suggested to him that the sums payable to him were Rs.1,45,559/- and Rs.50,816/- after deducting

¶47

:: 7 ::

¶48

certain sums due by him to the KSRTC. PW1 has denied these suggestions. The evidence given by the petitioner does not indicate that he was to be paid Rs.8,50,000/-by the KSRTC. Once a workman is ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits, the employer has to calculate the monetary benefits payable to the workman and Ex.D.6 is a proof to it. Ex.D.7 shows that the petitioner was notified about payments of Rs.1,45,559/- and Rs.50,816/-. Ex.D.9 is a letter issued by the Syndicate Bank to the Senior Divisional Controller, KSRTC that a sum of Rs.1,45,559/- and another sum of Rs.50,816/- were debited to the account of KSRTC in connection with two cheques issued to the petitioner. Bank statement in this regard is also produced. Therefore if this payment is forthcoming, it is not understandable as to on what basis, the petitioner still contends that no payment has been made to him so far. If according to him, he has to receive

¶49

:: 8 ::

¶50

more than the amount already paid to him, as rightly contended by the respondents’ counsel, he has to initiate action against the KSRTC under Section 33(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 29 is a penal provision and burden was on the petitioner to prove non payment. His evidence does not disclose non payment and on the other hand, the evidence placed by the respondents shows compliance of the award. Therefore, both the Courts have come to right conclusion. In this view I do not find any merit in this revision petition and hence, it is dismissed .

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Kmv/-

M Ramaiah v. Ganganna Gowda B C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Ramaiah v. Ganganna Gowda B C

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

Smt Yallamma Vs Sri B S Manjunath

Everest Fleet Private Limited Vs State by Chikkajala Police Station

Mubarak @ Diwan Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Pooja Hiran Vs State of Karnataka by

Illiyaz @ Illu Vs State by C a O

Mr Vaibhav Gupta Vs Union of India