Dismissed

Sri.R.Balasubramanyam v. M/S S-Mac Securityservices Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2022WP/23398/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Veteran labour court allowed partial reinstatement with no back wages. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that since the petitioner refused to report for duty due to alleged ailments, the court could not implement the order or allow any claim for back wages.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; order cannot be implemented as petitioner is unwilling to report to duty.

Sri.R.Balasubramanyam Vs M/S S-Mac… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 23398 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 23398 OF 2017 (L-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.R.BALASUBRAMANYAM S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.962/1, IST FLOOR, IST MAIN ROAD, MARUTHI NAGAR, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR A, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

M/S S-MAC SECURITYSERVICES PVT LTD REPRESENTED BY SMT.COL.B.RAMANI, VICE PRESIDENT, NO.232, 6TH A MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, NEAR BANASWADI POLICE STATION, KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-560043

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. KAVERI THIMMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO MODIFY TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER TO HIS ORIGINAL POST WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS WITHOUT BACK WAGES

¶18

¶19

WP No. 23398 of 2017

¶20

ALSO CONTINUITY SERVICE INSTEAD OF REINSTATE THE PETITIONER TO HIS ORIGINAL POST WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS WITH FULL BACK WAGES, ALSO CONTINUITY SERVICE AS DETERMINED BY THE TRIAL COURT PASSED THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.10.2016 IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO.67/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SECOND ADDL. LABOUR COURT AT BANGALORE.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief:

¶24

" Wherefore, therefore the petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to modified to reinstate the petitioner to his original post with all consequential benefits without back wages also continuity service instead of reinstate the petitioner to his original post with all consequential benefits with full back wages, also continuity service as determined by the trial Court passed the judgment dated 25.10.2016 in industrial dispute No.67 of 2014 on the file of the before the Presiding Officer, Second Additional Labour court at Bengaluru and pass such order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶25

¶26

WP No. 23398 of 2017

¶27

The petitioner has joined the respondent - Company on

¶28

21.06.2012 as a security guard with a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. On 15.01.2014, the petitioner had reported to work but he was refused employment by the employer. Hence, the petitioner has requested the field officer and thereafter, the Managing Director to provide employment, which is not provided.

¶29

Hence, a legal notice came to be issued on 03.03.2014 which is replied by the employer on 14.04.2014 wherein, they stated that on 14.01.2014, the petitioner was absent without leave and therefore, his services were terminated on the ground of indiscipline. The petitioner had approached the Vice President of the respondent Company again seeking for reassignment of the job, which is not acceded to.

¶30

As such, the petitioner claiming that there is a wrongful retrenchment under Section 2(aa) of the Industrial Disputes Act without following the mandatory provisions under Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has raised a dispute.

¶31

¶32

WP No. 23398 of 2017

¶33

The trial Court vide its order dated 25.10.2016 allowed the

¶34

same in-part directing the respondent to reinstate the workmen petitioner with all consequential benefits without back wages and also continue his service within 30 days from the date of publication of the award. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court stating that he has to be given full benefit including back wages.

¶35

Smt. Kaveri Thimmaiah, learned counsel for respondent submits that the respondent has always been willing to provide employment to the petitioner at an alternative site and despite a several requests made, even now, the petitioner has not reported to duty.

¶36

The counsel for the petitioner after enquiring with the petitioner submitted that he is suffering from serious heart ailments and as such he would not be in a position to report to work. The very claim which has been made is that the labour court has denied the back wages while directing the reinstatement of the petitioner. Now that the petitioner is not

¶37

¶38

WP No. 23398 of 2017

¶39

even willing to work even the order of reinstatement passed by the labour court, though in favour of the petitioner cannot be implemented. When the petitioner is not willing to report to work and be reinstated, the question of petitioner claiming back wages will also not arise. Hence, no grounds are made out, petition stands dismissed .

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Sri.R.Balasubramanyam v. M/S S-Mac Securityservices Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.R.Balasubramanyam v. M/S S-Mac Securityservices Pvt. Ltd.

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

Smt Anuradha Bharath Vs Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Smt Aruna Kannur Vs the State of Karnataka by

Rakshith Vs the State of Karnataka by

M/S Canara Bank Vs M Shantha Kumari

Mr M v Kanakaraj Vs the Regional Commissioner

Shri N Madhubabu Vs Bharat Electronics Limited