In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an Labour Court order percentage payment under Section 33(C)(2) of the I.D. Act. The court rejected the claim that the order was ex-parte, noting the management appointed advocates but failed to file objections, ultimately dismissing the writ petition as devoid of merits.
The Writ Petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.15828 OF 2019 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. DINAKAR ORKIN M.D., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, INNOVANT SERVICE PVT LTD., (ORKIN PEST CONTROL), #4, VAIBHAV CENTRE, 3RD FLOOR, RAMANA MAHARSHI ROAD, SADHASHIV NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 080. (BY SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY., ADVOCATE)
…PETITIONER
AND:
K. MANJUNATH S/O K. MALLIKARJUN, #172, 1ST MAIN, M.S.R. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 054.
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.MARUTHI, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI N., ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2023:KHC:42195 WP No. 15828 of 2019
ORDER
Smt.Archana Murthy., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Maruthi., learned counsel on behalf of Smt.Vijayalakshmi.N., for the respondent have appeared in person.
The respondent filed an application under Section 33 (C)
(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, contending that he was engaged as a Branch Manager on 12.08.2015 as per Appointment Letter dated:10.08.2015. It is stated that the respondent promised the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/(Rupees Forty Thousand only) per month as salary and certain amount of incentives. It was also promised to pay him for 24
paid leaves per annum. It is said that the applicant worked sincerely, faithfully and promptly. On 27.10.2016, the respondent requested the applicant to submit the resignation letter without any prior notice. On the very same day i.e., on 27.10.2016, the applicant submitted his resignation letter with
request to payment of dues as soon as possible i.e., two months salary and one month notice period salary and other
expenses. The Management replied that the due will be paid within few days. Same day the Management relieved the applicant from the job. It is said that the applicant requested the Management orally and through emails for the payment but he did not receive any response. Hence, he was constrained to make an application under 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
After the registration of the case, notice was issued to the Management. The advocate by name Sri.GNMR filed a memo of appearance for the Management on 28.12.2017 and after two dates i.e., 20.04.2018, another advocate Sri.HP filed vakalath for the Management. Despite giving sufficient time, the Management failed to file objections. Hence, the objections on behalf of the Management was taken as nil and posted the case for the evidence of the applicant. The applicant led evidence as AW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to 8 and closed his side of evidence. The Labour Court vide order dated 20.11.2018 partly allowed the application and directed the Management to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date
NC: 2023:KHC:42195 WP No. 15828 of 2019
of order till realization. It is this order that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as setout in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
respondent have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ Papers with utmost care.
NC: 2023:KHC:42195 WP No. 15828 of 2019
the Labour court and as such the Labour court passed an ex-parte order.
I am unable to accept the said contentions, the reason is apparent, after the registration of the case, notice was issued to the Management. It is also not in dispute that one advocate by name Sri.GNMR filed a memo of appearance for the Management on 28.12.2017 and after two dates i.e., on 20.04.2018, another advocate by name Sri.HP filed vakalath for the Management. Despite giving sufficient time, the Management failed to file objections and did not contest the application. Hence, the contention that the order is ex-parte must necessarily fail. Furthermore, the Labour court passed the order on 20.11.2018. The Writ petition is filed only in the month of March 2019 subsequent to issuance of show cause notice on 11.03.2019 by the Labour Commissioner. The conduct of the Management reveals that they are not interested
in contesting the matter diligently. Furthermore, I find no infirmity in the order of the Labour Court. For the reasons
NC: 2023:KHC:42195 WP No. 15828 of 2019
stated above, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is
liable to be dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court order alleging an ex-parte proceeding.
Whether the petitioner's contention regarding lack of objection filing by the management is valid.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. Dinakar Orkin M.D., Innovation Service Pvt Ltd.
K. Manjunath
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
