Dismissed

Sri B M Dhananjaya v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2023WP/18702/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners challenged the Principal Labour Court's award dismissing their claim for unfair termination after working as Gangmen. The court held the Labour Courts finding based on lack of evidence and delay was sound and permitted no interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition against the impugned award of the Principal Labour Court is dismissed.

Sri B M Dhananjaya Vs the Managing Director — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 18702 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 18702 OF 2018 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI B.M. DHANANJAYA S/O. B.H. MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NANJUNDESHWARA NILAYA, SIRAGATE, OPP. D.C. BUNGLA, TUMAKURU - 572 101.

¶9

SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. SIDDAGANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT MELUKOTE, OPP. SIDDARTHA GATE, GURUBASAWESHWARA, VIDYAPEETA, MELUKOTE MAIN ROAD, TUMAKURU.

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. M. DAYANAND S/O. MARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.192, 4TH MAIN ROAD, SIRA BYPASS BATAWADI, TUMAKURU - 572 101.

¶12

SRI. G.C. SRINIVASAIAH S/O. CHIKKARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT GOWDAHALLI, DODDANARAVANGALA POST, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶13

2 - WP No. 18702 of 2018

¶14

SRI. G. CHANNBASAVAIAH S/O. GANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT GOWDIHALLI, DODDANARAVANGALA POST, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶15

SRI. G.S. SOMASHEKARAIAH S/O. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT GOWDIHALLI, DODDANARAVANGALA POST, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶16

SRI. B.J. VIKRAM S/O. BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT JANATHA COLONY, SHETTIHALLI ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572 101.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA K., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶21

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BESCOM, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 091.

¶22

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC) O & M DIVISION, BESCOM, TUMAKURU - 572 101.

¶23

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC) CITY SUB-DIVISION (C.S.D), BESCOM, TUMKURU - 572 101.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHESHA KARTHIK M. REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

¶25

¶26

WP No. 18702 of 2018

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE, IN REF.NO.04/2012, DATED 15.02.2018, VIDE ANNEXURE-J TO THE WRIT PETITION; AND ETC.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

The petitioners claiming that, they worked as Gangmen in respondent - Corporation from 22.3.2001 till 31.12.2001, and were refused employment abruptly, filed a claim petition under Section 10(1)(c)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶32

The Labour Court, after examining the evidence on record held that, the services of the petitioners were utilized for replacement of copper wire on consolidated wages of Rs.1,700/- p.m. The workmen having not produced any material to substantiate their claim that, they had worked continuously for a period of more than 240 days in 2001, dismissed the claim petition, and also the dispute was raised after more than nine years without offering any plausible explanation. The finding recorded by the Labour Court is based on evidence on record and cannot be said to be based on insufficient evidence or no evidence at all. In the absence of any perversity or arbitrariness, the finding recorded by the Labour Court cannot be interfered. Hence, I do not find any

¶33

¶34

WP No. 18702 of 2018

¶35

illegality in the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Writ petition is dismissed.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

¶40

BKM

Sri B M Dhananjaya v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B M Dhananjaya v. the Managing Director

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 Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri Sadiq Khan

Sri. B Subramanya Swamy Vs the Provident Fund Commissioner

Jagannath B J Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Sri Cheluva Raju S/O Sri Narasegowda Vs the Director General

Sri. Arunkumar Navalli Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri. S Karunakaran Vs the Regional Transport Authority