Disposed

Pankaj Roy v. the Management of M/S Tech Mahindra

Karnataka HC8 Aug 2023WP/3122/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of two writ petitions challenging labour court awards denying reinstatement. The court disposed of these petitions as the parties had settled amicably with the management agreeing to pay lump sums and issuing demand drafts.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions challenging the labour court award were disposed of as the dispute was settled amicably with demand drafts issued by the management.

Pankaj Roy Vs the Management of M/S Tech… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:27960 WP No. 3122 of 2020 C/W WP No. 3130 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 3122 OF 2020 (L-RES)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 3130 OF 2020 (L-RES)

¶10

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3122 OF 2020:

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

PANKAJ ROY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O R.M.ROY, B 1202, CONCORDE, MANHATTANS, ELECTRONIC CITY, I PHASE, OPP. WIPRO GATE NO.16, BENGALURU-560 100.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI. K B NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶16

THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S TECH MAHINDRA NO.44, P-45 AND P-46, UNIT-3, 2ND PHASE, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, ELECTRONIC CITY, BENGALURU-560 100. REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶17

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M NIKHILESH RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO MODIFY THE AWARD DATED 17.10.2019 PASSED BY THE HONBLE II ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN I.D.NO.79/2017 AS AT ANENXURE-A AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE HIM IN TO THEIR SERVICE WITH

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:27960 WP No. 3122 of 2020 C/W WP No. 3130 of 2020

¶21

FULL BACK WAGES, CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

¶22

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3130 OF 2020:

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

RAMESH M AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE K MUTHU SRINIVASAN F-105, DIVYA COMFORTS 56, 1ST MAIN, SRK GARDEN BENGALURU-560 041.

¶25

…PETITIONER

¶26

(BY SRI. K B NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S TECH MAHINDRA NO.44, P-45 AND P-46 UNIT-3, 2ND PHASE, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, ELECTRONIC CITY, BENGALURU-560 100 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶29

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M NIKHILESH RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶30

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO MODIFY THE AWARD DATED 17.10.2019 PASSED BY THE HONBLE II ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN I.D.NO.80/2017 AS AT ANNEXURE-A AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE HIM IN TO THEIR SERVICE WITH FULL BACK WAGES, CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

¶31

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:27960 WP No. 3122 of 2020 C/W WP No. 3130 of 2020

¶33

ORDER

¶34

These petitions are filed challenging the award passed by the Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court at Bangalore in I.D.Nos.79 and 80 of 2017, by which, the claim petitions filed by the petitioners-workmen under section 2(A) r/w 104A of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947 came to be partly allowed insofar it relates to denial of reinstatement and back wages.

¶35

Parties have settled the disputes amicably between themselves and in terms of the settlement, the respondentManagement has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.19,05,025/- to the workmen in W.P.No.3130/2020 and a sum of Rs.9,76,160/- to the workmen in W.P.No.3122/2020, and in terms of the said settlement, the respondent Management have issued a demand drafts dated 30.7.2023 for a sum of Rs.17,62,293/- after deducting tax at source to the workman in W.P.No.3130/2020 and a sum of Rs. 9,25,280/- after deducting tax at source to the workman in W.P.No.3122/2020.

¶36

The amount paid to the workmen herein is towards the wages for the period which they were out of the employment spread over from the date of the dismissal till the date of the award i.e., from 31.5.2017 to 17.10.2019 in both the cases.

¶37

The petitioners-workmen having accepted the said amount towards full and final settlement of their claims, the relief sought for in these petitions does not survive for consideration and accordingly, stands disposed of.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:27960 WP No. 3122 of 2020 C/W WP No. 3130 of 2020

¶40

This order is subject to realization of the demand drafts issued in favour of the workmen.

¶41

In view of the disposal of the main petitions, pending I.As. do not survive for consideration.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Pankaj Roy v. the Management of M/S Tech Mahindra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Roy v. the Management of M/S Tech Mahindra

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

Amit Bhadoria Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Palaiah O Vs the State of Karnataka

Girish K @ Layout Gunda Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Prathapchand P Rathod Vs State by Sadashivanagar Police Station

M/S Eminent Corp Vs M/S Unnathi Digital Solutions LLP

Vazir Beig Vs the State Karnataka by