Partly allowed

The Management v. Vittal S/O. Jyotiba Karande

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2022WP/107907/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition to modify an order under Section 33C(2) of the 1947 Act. It quashed the part directing execution of a back-wage claim that was stayed in a related writ petition, leaving the rest of the award intact.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is quashed insofar as it relates to transmitting the award for execution; the pressant order remains unaltered. The petitioner Corporation is directed to pay the amount legally enti

The Management Vs Vittal S/O. Jyotiba… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 107907 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.107907 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC, BELAGAVI DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BELAGAVI, DELAGAVI, THE PETITIONER IS REPESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, HUBBALLI.

¶10

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

VITTAL S/O. JYOTIBA KARANDE AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC NIL, R/O.AMARGOL, TQ. NAVALAGUND, DIST. DHARWAD

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 07.02.2012 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE AND LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI IN APL.NO.46/2011 AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE APL.NO.46/2011 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ON THE FILE OF LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI THE COPY OF THE SAME IS AT ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶15

THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP No. 107907 of 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Consequent to the order passed by the Additional Labour Court, Hubballi, in K.I.D. No.103/2010, on 14.07.2011, whereby the petitioner-Corporation was directed to reinstate the respondent-workman into service with 50% back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits, the workman filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to compute the amount due to him and direct the Corporation to pay Rs.93,591-50 ps. together with interest. The Labour Court concerned, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order partly allowing the application, directing the Corporation to pay full back wages from 14.07.2011 till 20.11.2011 while dismissing the application in respect of 50% of back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of award with a direction to transmit the award to the jurisdictional Civil for execution.

¶20

The Learned counsel appearing for the petitionerCorporation submits that the Labour Court concerned committed an error in passing the impugned order since the award passed by the Labour Court was the subject matter of

¶21

¶22

WP No. 107907 of 2016

¶23

Writ Petition No.80779/2013 and the interim order of stay was operating against the said award.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the respondentworkman submits that the impugned order was passed in terms of the award passed by the Labour Court in K.I.D. No.103/2010, dated 14.07.2011, setting aside the order of dismissal and directing the Corporation to reinstate the workman into service with 50% back wages, continuity of service.

¶25

I have examined the submissions made by the

¶26

learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

The award passed by the Labour Court setting aside the order of dismissal passed against the workman was the subject matter of writ petition in W.P. No.80779/2013 and this Court, by order dated 30.11.2021, partly allowed the writ petition by setting aside the award insofar as it related to awarding of 50% back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of award. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the Labour Court requires to be modified. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶28

¶29

WP No. 107907 of 2016

¶30

ORDER

¶31

i) The writ petition is allowed in part.

¶32

ii) The impugned order/award dated 07.02.2012 passed by the Labour Court in APL. No.46/2011, insofar as it relates to transmitting the award to the jurisdictional Court for execution is hereby quashed and other part of the impugned award remains unaltered.

¶33

iii) It is needless to state that the Corporation is under an obligation to pay the amount to which the workman is legally entitled to under this order.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

KMS

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 103

The Management v. Vittal S/O. Jyotiba Karande

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management v. Vittal S/O. Jyotiba Karande

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

The Divisional Controller Nwkrtc Vs Ramappa S/O Basavanneppa Karrora

Sri. Nagaraj S/O Basappa Billal Vs the State of Karnataka

Devendrappa S/O Hanumantappa Vaddarahatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Kamalavva W/O Shivamallappa Bhagoji Vs the State of Karnataka

Dattatraya Yalagurdrao Kulkarni Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivu Masti Mukri Vs the State of Karnataka