Partly allowed

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v. Sri.R. Sharath Babu

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2023WA/1276/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenges an order reinstating a dismissed HAL employee. The High Court bench allowed the appeal in part, sustaining the reinstatement but setting aside the direction for 10% backwages, relying on the 'no work no pay' principle due to the employee's alternative gainful employment options.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is allowed in part; the direction for payment of 10% backwages is set at naught, but reinstatement with all other consequential benefits is sustained.

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs Sri.R… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39360-DB WA No. 1276 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1276 OF 2023 (S-DE)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED., BANGALORE COMPLEX, C V RAMAN NAGAR, POST BAG NO.9310, BANGALORE 560 093.

¶11

REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶12

MANAGING DIRECTOR HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED., BANGALORE COMPLEX, BANGALORE 560 017.

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

DIRECTOR (H.R) HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED., 15/1, CUBBON ROAD, POST BOX NO.5150, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶15

GENERAL MANAGER (ENGINE) AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED., ENGINE DIVISION, BANGALORE COMPLEX, POST BAG NO.9310, BENGALURU 560 093.

¶16

DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (H.R) HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED., ENGINE DIVISION, BANGALORE COMPLEX, POST BAG NO.9310, BENGALURU 560 093.

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI. PRAMOD NAIR., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADYUMNA L.NARASIMHA.,ADVOCATE)

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:39360-DB WA No. 1276 of 2023

¶20

AND:

¶21

SRI.R. SHARATH BABU, S/O R. KUMARASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, EX-DEPUTY MANAGER (HR) HAL (BC) ENGINE DIVISION, R/AT NO.20, 4^TH MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, G.M. PALYA, NEW THIPPASANDRA POST, BANGALORE 560 075.

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SMT.B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO i) ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND ii) SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THIS HONBLE COURT DATED 05 SEPTEMBER 2023 RENDERED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. No. 28246/2015 AND ETC.,

¶25

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This intra - Court appeal seeks to lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge’s order dated 05.09.2023 whereby, the respondent – employee’s W.P No.28246/2015 (S-DE) having been favoured, his dismissal from service is set at naught coupled with a direction for reinstatement in service with 10% backwages and all other consequential benefits.

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39360-DB WA No. 1276 of 2023

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argues that the respondent/writ petitioner had manipulated and fabricated certain records concerning his credentials for employment and therefore, after holding an enquiry he was shunted out of employment. He draws attention of the Court to the enquiry proceedings that eventually resulted into dismissal of the employee. Learned counsel representing the respondent – employee opposes the appeal with equal vehemence contending that the allegation of fraud, forgery and fabrication is a serious matter and that cannot be decided sans a forensic examination of the subject documents. Even otherwise, the employee had the eligibility & requisite qualification for the appointment in question, even if the so-called spurious documents are eschewed from the record. She also invokes a 7 Judge Bench decision in TAMMANNA vs. RENUKA, 2009 SCC OnLine KAR 123 to contend that this intra-Court appeal is not maintainable.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are broadly in

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:39360-DB WA No. 1276 of 2023

¶32

agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge

¶33

and therefore, we grant only a marginal indulgence in the matter i.e. to the extent of faltering the direction for payment of 10% backwages. At para 38 of the impugned order, the following observations are rightly made:

¶34

“To reiterate, the fact that the petitioner had worked in three Companies is not in dispute. The fact that the petitioner had the requisite post-qualification experience in other two Companies, in which he did work, is also not in dispute. More importantly, the fact that the petitioner did not work n M/s. AARESS iron and Steel ltd., is also not in dispute and the only dispute that is sought to be raised is the extent of period during which he worked with M/s. AARESS iron and steel ltd. Since the petitioner had possessed the requisite post-qualification experience, and even if the disputed period of employment was excluded, it cannot be stated that the petitioner was guilty of furnishing false information which had resulted in his being employed.”

¶35

All the above being said, there is force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that with the glorious credentials of the employee, the learned Single Judge opined that he could not have remained gainfully unemployed and therefore, no direction could have been issued for the payment of 10% backwages.

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:39360-DB WA No. 1276 of 2023

¶37

Ordinarily, the rule of ‘No work no pay’ is invokable in cases of the kind subject to all just exceptions into which writ petitioners case does not fit. Learned counsel representing the respondent – employee in appreciable fairness agrees with our suggestion that no backwages are payable.

¶38

In the above circumstances, this appeal is allowed in part. Although, the impugned order is sustained, only the direction for payment of 10% backwages is set at naught. We make it clear that the respondent shall be reinstated with all other consequential benefits, as directed by the learned Single Judge. Costs made easy.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Snb/

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v. Sri.R. Sharath Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v. Sri.R. Sharath Babu

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

Dr Shivaleela Desai Vs M/S K S D Extrusions

Sri Hanumantharaju B C Vs Sri P Ravi Kumar

Sri Ananda Murthy Vs Cheif Secretary

Shankaranarayana Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Uma Rajan Vs Sri Subaiah

Sri. Ramesh. K Vs Karnataka State Law University