This writ petition challenged a Labour Court award rejecting a reinstatement claim due to the petitioner's refusal to report to duty after reinstatement was ordered. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Labour Court's decision.
The writ petition challenging the Labour Court's rejection of the petitioner's claim 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.
NC: 2023:KHC:41705 WP No. 340 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.340 OF 2018 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI S.VISWANATHAN, S/O. MR. S.SHANMUGAM, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. NO. 5/2, 2ND FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, MANJUNATHANAGAR, MAGADI ROAD, BEHIND PRASANNA THEATRE, BENGALORE - 560 023.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.A.PRAKASH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M/S. NEELA PRINTS PVT LTD., NO. 69, 2ND MAIN ROAD, INDUSTRIAL TOWN, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALORE - 560 044. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI. P.V.SRINIVAS. …RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR S.N.MURTHY ASSOCIATES)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 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:41705 WP No. 340 of 2018
ORDER
Sri.K.A.Prakash., learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person.
Sri.Somashekar., learned counsel on behalf of S.N.Murthy Associates for the respondent has appeared through video conferencing.
2. The brief facts are these:
The petitioner was appointed in the Company of the respondent as Supervisor on monthly salary of Rs.3,000/(Rupees Three Thousand only) on 05.11.1998. The respondent Management started terminating the services of the employees of the Company one by one, on one pretext or the other with an ulterior motive. On 01.12.2013, the services of the petitioner was terminated by the respondent stating that the full termination benefits along with the salary arrears of two months would be settlement within fifteen days from 01.12.2013. The petitioner got issued legal notice on 28.12.2013 demanding arrears of salary and termination benefits from the respondent. Despite the receipt of notice, the
NC: 2023:KHC:41705 WP No. 340 of 2018
respondent Management neither replied nor settled the salary arrears and terminal benefits. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to raise a dispute before the Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.20/2014. On receipt of the notice, the respondent remained Ex-parte in the first instance. The Labour Court vide award dated:31.07.2014 allowed the claim petition by setting aside the termination of the petitioner and directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and other consequential benefits.
The respondent questioned the Ex-parte award by filing Miscellaneous Application in M.A.No.02/2014 under Section 11(1) and (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act to recall the Exparte award dated:31.07.2014 passed in I.D.No.20/2014. The Miscellaneous Application was allowed vide order dated:03.06.2015 and the I.D.No.20/2014 was restored to its original file. After restoration, the Labour Court vide award dated:02.02.2017 rejected the claim petition. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
NC: 2023:KHC:41705 WP No. 340 of 2018
respondent have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.
Suffice it to note that the petitioner raised a dispute in I.D.No.20/2014 and it was allowed back in the year 2014 and directed the Management to reinstate the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the respondent remained Ex-parte , hence it was constrained to move an application for restoration of the Exparte award. The Ex-parte award was recalled and the case was restored to its original file. After restoration, the respondent contested the matter on the merits of the case. The parties led evidence. The petitioner was examined as WW1. The true copy of the evidence is furnished along with the statement of objections.
A perusal of the cross-examination of the petitioner would reveal that the respondent Management called upon the petitioner to come and report to the duty, but the petitioner
has refused to report to duty. In the cross-examination, the petitioner has stated that he has sought for the payment of terminal benefits and has not sought for reinstatement. A perusal of the cross examination reveals that the respondent Management was ready and willing to take him back to work, but the petitioner has not reported to duty. In fact, after setting aside the Ex-parte award, the Management filed a memo on 14.10.2015 and made a request to the Court to direct the first party to go and report to duty immediately. But, the first party did not report to the duty. Despite the order of reinstatement, the petitioner did not chose to report to duty. The conduct of the petitioner reveals that he is not interested in discharging his duties. Furthermore, the respondent contends that it has closed the Press with effect from 25.05.2017 and in this regard, the respondent has also communicated a letter dated:25.05.2017 to LVO-71, office of the Assistant Commissioner for Commercial Tax. The Registration is cancelled on 31.05.2017.
The Labour Court extenso referred to the material on record and rightly rejected the claim petition. I find no grounds to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. For the reasons
NC: 2023:KHC:41705 WP No. 340 of 2018
stated above, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court's award rejecting the notice period and reinstatement claim.
Whether the petitioner is liable to be dismissed for refusing to report to duty after the Ex-parte award was recalled.
Sri S.Viswanathan
M/S. Neela Prints Pvt Ltd.
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
