Allowed

Sri. Sathappa Akki v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2023WP/15601/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an award by the Third Addl. Labour Court which treated a permanent driver as a trainee. The Court found the award based on irrelevant appointment dates and errors regarding the employee's status, constituting a gross injustice. The writ petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Certiorari issued to quash the award of the Labour Court dated 22.11.2017; the claim raised by the workman is dismissed.

Sri. Sathappa Akki Vs the Divisional… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 15601 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 15601 OF 2018 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SATHAPPA AKKI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O SRI RUDRAPPA, R/A DEVALAPURA VILLAGE AND POST KHANAPURA TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NAIK V S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER B.M.T.C. WEST DIVISION, KENGERI BENGALURU - 560 060.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA., ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF TH CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE AWARD DATED 22.11.2017 PASSED BY THE THIRD ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU, IN REF.NO.61/2016 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E SINCE THE LABOUR COURT HAS COMMITTED ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORDS AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

WP No. 15601 of 2018

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶22

following reliefs:

¶23

a. Issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, or direction quashing the award dated 22.11.2017 passed by the Third Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru, in Ref.No.61/2016 the certified copy of which is produced and marked as Annexure-E since the Labour Court has committed errors which are apparent on the face of the records;

¶24

b. Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or direction directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner workman in his original post with full back wages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits to meet the ends of justice;

¶25

c. Grant such other relief or reliefs as deemed necessary to meet the ends of justice.

¶26

The petitioner-workman is before this Court challenging the order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the III Addl. Labour Court in Reference No.61/2016. The workman had filed a claim petition under Section

¶27

10(4-A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short ‘ID Act’] seeking to set-aside the order of dismissal dated 4.3.2015 and directing the corporation to reinstate the workman with continuity of service.

¶28

¶29

WP No. 15601 of 2018

¶30

The Labour Court coming to a conclusion that the workman is a trainee and bound by the terms and conditions of the training and coming to a further conclusion that the workman had remained unauthorisedly absent from his duties on nine earlier occasions, upheld the order of dismissal and dismissed the claim petition. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioner-workman is before this Court.

¶31

Sri.V.S.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not a trainee but a permanent employee of the respondent-Corporation having been appointed as a driver as is clear and apparent from a reading of the orders of dismissal itself and as such, the labour Court could not have applied the rules applicable to a Trainee to that of a permanent employee like the petitioner. He submits that the labour Court has not applied its mind to the matter inasmuch as the facts which have been referred to in para 11 are also not that relating to the

¶32

¶33

WP No. 15601 of 2018

¶34

present matter and as such, there is gross injustice which has been caused to the petitioner.

¶35

Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation fairly concedes to the submission made by Sri.V.S.Naik, and further submits that the matter may be remanded to the Labour Court for fresh consideration on all aspects of the matter.

¶36

Heard Sri.V.S.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner-workman and Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation. Perused papers.

¶37

It is clear from perusal of the papers that the workman has been appointed as a driver on 11.10.2004 and the unauthorised absence complained of is in the year 2014. This very fact would negate the finding of the Labour Court that the workman is a trainee. In para 11 of the impugned award, the labour Court has observed that the workman had been appointed on 3.07.2014 and was

¶38

¶39

WP No. 15601 of 2018

¶40

discharging his duties as a driver-cum-conductor. The other details which have been referred to in para 11 also do not appear to be that relating to the present matter in dispute. Thus, the entire reasoning of the labour Court in paragraphs 13 and 14 being as regards facts which are not related to the present matter, more particularly as regards the workman being considered to be a trainee, in my considered opinion is a gross injustice which has been caused to the workman.

¶41

In view thereof, I pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶44

ii. A certiorari is issued the Award dated 22.11.2017 passed by the III Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru in Ref. No. 61/2016 at Annexure-E is hereby quashed, consequently the claim raised by the workman is dismissed.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Sri. Sathappa Akki v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sathappa Akki v. the Divisional Controller

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

Management of the Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. Vs Mysore Paper Mills Forest Employees"

The Workmen of Mysore Paper Mills Limited Vs the Management of Mysore Paper Mills Ltd.

Workmen of Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. Vs Managment of M/S Mysore Paper Mills Limited

Venkatesh K Vs Heildelberg Cement India Ltd.

The Divisional Controller Vs Bengaluru Central Division

K Srinivas Murthy Vs the Bangalore Development Authority