Quashed

The Chief Traffic Manager v. Sri M Peerajade M B

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2023WP/31197/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka addressed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court order that awarded time scale benefits to a former employee without adjudicating entitlement or addressing delay. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding the nature of proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Court set aside the lower order due to the lack of prior adjudication on the

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issued to quash the order dated 16.06.2015 passed by the III Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru in Application No.07/2010.

The Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri M… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41704 WP No. 31197 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.31197 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, B.M.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. B.L.SANJEEV., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI M.PEERAJADE M.B. S/O. BADASHA SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O. NO.1220, NEAR UPPER HILL ENGLISH SCHOOL, MARGONDANAHALLI (ELECTRONIC CITY), HULIMANGALA POST, BENGALURU - 47.

¶12

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. PUSHPA. T.S., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:41704 WP No. 31197 of 2016

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Sri.B.L.Sanjeev., learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person.

¶19

There is no representation on behalf of the

¶20

respondent either personally or through video conferencing.

¶21

As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 20.11.2023; learned counsel for the petitioner was present and there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. This Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and it was ordered to be listed on 21.11.2023 to hear learned counsel for the respondent.

¶22

The petition is listed today. As already noted above, when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent either personally or through video conferencing. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass orders on the merits of the case.

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41704 WP No. 31197 of 2016

¶24

3. The brief facts are these:

¶25

The respondent was initially engaged as a Badli Conductor with effect from 19.03.1971 against the vacancies occurred due to leave/ SPE/ Absent by the regular Conductors, vide DEO No.67/71 dated:15.04.1971. It was very clearly mentioned in the said DEO that the Badli Conductors so engaged will be paid at Rs.5.23/- (Five Rupees and Twentythree paise only) per day (inclusive of DA) for the number of days they work as such. In all twenty-six candidates including the respondent were engaged as Badli Conductors. As per the terms and conditions stipulated in the DEO, if for any reason they are not found suitable for the post, their names will be removed from the roll of Badli Conductors. The respondent was placed on probation for a period of one year with effect from 18.11.1976 in terms of the Provisions vide Clause 25(1) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated:18.03.1974 vide DEO No.562/76 dated:18.11.1976 along with 257 similarly placed Badli Conductors. Thereafter, the respondent was confirmed to the post of Conductor with effect from 10.02.1978 after postponing the period of probation for 84 days vide DEO

¶26

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:41704 WP No. 31197 of 2016

¶27

No.545/78 dated:30.05.1978 along with 63 similarly placed conductors.

¶28

As per the request of the respondent for personal reasons, he was transferred from BTS Division to Bijapur Division, vide CTEO No.977 dated:18.03.1980 and accordingly he was relieved from BTS Division on 12.03.1980 and he reported at Bijapur Division on 13.03.1980. Thereafter, he was transferred from Bijapur Division to Bengaluru Division vide CTEO No.1449 dated:14.02.1991 and he reported at Bengaluru Division of KSRTC on 01.03.1991 and served at Bengaluru Division till 28.12.2004 and thereafter, he was transferred to BMTC and reported in BMTC on 28.12.2004.

¶29

As things stood thus, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.4266/2002 along with eight similarly placed employees of Bengaluru Central Division claiming that they may be placed on time scale of pay from the date of completion of 180 days from their initial appointment in terms of Clause 22(ii) of Industrial Truce Agreement dated:17.02.1962. The Writ Petition was partly allowed on

¶30

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:41704 WP No. 31197 of 2016

¶31

13.10.2006. Thereafter, the respondent submitted a representation on 22.03.2007 to the Divisional Controller, Bengaluru Central Division and the Managing Director, KSRTC requesting to implement the order passed in W.P.No.4266/2002. Further, in compliance of the above said order passed by this Court, the petitioner Corporation issued an endorsement on 10.03.2007 stating that his case cannot be considered for regularization of his services on completion of 180 days from the date of initial appointment as his case does not fall within the purview of the order passed by this Court on 03.08.1999 in W.A.No.4997/1998.

¶32

It is said that there is no specific direction in the order dated:13.10.2006 passed in W.P.No.4266/2002 to give time scale benefits from 08.09.1971. Hence, as directed by this Court, the representation of the respondent was considered and an endorsement was issued. However, the respondent filed Contempt Petition in C.C.C.No.120/2007 alleging noncompliance of the order passed in W.P.No.4266/2002 and for initiation of contempt proceedings against the petitioner

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:41704 WP No. 31197 of 2016

¶35

Corporation. The Contempt Petition was dismissed on 20.06.2007.

¶36

The Seniority of the applicant was counted in BMTC and as per the adhoc seniority list prepared in BMTC, the respondent was promoted to the post of Traffic Controller vide GEO No.855 dated:04.12.2004. Further, he was posted to work in BMTC on officiating basis and accordingly the respondent reported to the promoted post on 28.12.2004. After his promotion to the post of Traffic Controller, he was given annual increments.

¶37

As things stood thus, after a lapse of more than thirty years, the respondent filed an application under Section 33 C (2) of the I.D Act before the Labour Court, Bengaluru seeking for a direction to the petitioner to pay him a sum of Rs.1,86,376/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Six only) being the time scale benefits with interest at 12% per annum on the said amount from 31.05.2005. The Labour Court vide order dated:16.06.2015 allowed the application. It is this order that is called into

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:41704 WP No. 31197 of 2016

¶40

question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶41

Learned counsel for petitioner has urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and perused the Writ papers and the records with utmost care.

¶42

The point that requires consideration is whether the order of the Labour Court requires interference.

¶43

The facts of the case are quite simple. The captioned Writ Petition arises out of a proceeding brought by the respondent under Section 33 C (2) of the I.D Act. The respondent had contended that he is entitled for the time scale benefits. The claim application is furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked at Annexure-B. A perusal of the same would reveal that the respondent has filed an application under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming a sum of Rs.1,86,376/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Six only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 31.05.2005 till

¶44

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:41704 WP No. 31197 of 2016

¶45

realization. The petitioner Corporation filed a detailed statement of objections. The specific contention of the Corporation was that the application was liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches. The Corporation also denied its liability to pay the amount. However, the Labour Court did not considered the issue regarding delay and laches and straight away ordered for the payment of the money as claimed by the applicant.

¶46

It is not in dispute that the litigation relates to the application filed under Section 33 C (2) of the I.D. Act. The scope and ambit of Section 33 C (2) have been defined by catena of decisions by the Apex Court. In other words, where a case involves an investigation into the applicant’s right to the relief and the corresponding liability of the employer, such an investigation is impressible in an application under section 33 C (2) of the Act.

¶47

Suffice it to note that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33 C (2) was dealt with by the Supreme Court exhaustively in several cases including MYSORE STATE ROAD

¶48

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:41704 WP No. 31197 of 2016

¶49

TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE VS SK ATHANI

¶50

reported in AIR 1973 SC 2448 . Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 33 C (2) is analogous to the execution court. Section 33 C (2) is a proceeding like an execution.

¶51

In the present case, the applicant has claimed that

¶52

he is entitled for the time scale benefits. But it is relevant to note that there has been no adjudication. The Corporation has disputed the entitlement of the applicant to claim time scale benefits. Therefore, in the absence of adjudication of the right of the respondent to recover the amount in question from the Corporation, the Labour Court could not have adjudicated the liability in a proceeding under Section 33 C (2) of the I.D. Act. As already noted above, the Labor Court has failed to consider that there is an inordinate delay of almost thirty years in filing the application and straight-way ordered to pay the sum as claimed by the respondent. The order is unsustainable in law.

¶53

I may venture to say that the Labor Court has failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded

¶54

10 -

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:41704 WP No. 31197 of 2016

¶56

relevant matters. In my considered opinion, the order is unsustainable in law. The order of the Labor court is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside.

¶57

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated

¶58

16.06.2015 passed by the III Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru in Application No.07/2010 vide Annexure-D is quashed.

¶59

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

MRP/TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

The Chief Traffic Manager v. Sri M Peerajade M B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Traffic Manager v. Sri M Peerajade M B

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

Sri. Somasundar Vs the Management of

Sri. K Raghurama Shetty Vs the Assistant Director

M/S. Vikas Enterprises Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II

Sri S Viswanathan Vs M/S Neela Prints Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Shivalinga

The Management of M/S Bengal Lamps Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka