Dismissed

Sri Cheluva Raju S/O Sri Narasegowda v. the Director General

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2023WP/3920/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an award by the Mysore Labour Court in service dispute cases. The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Labour Court's holding that the petitioners failed to prove an employer-employee relationship due to lack of evidence and were barred by inordinate delay.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed upholding the impugned award of the Labour Court.

Sri Cheluva Raju S/O Sri Narasegowda Vs the… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 3920 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3920 OF 2012 (L-TER)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI CHELUVA RAJU, S/O SRI NARASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO 197, LALITHADRIPURA VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE.

¶9

SRI SRINIVASA, S/O SRI NARASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO 147, LALITHADRIPURA, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE.

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI MAHADEVA, S/O HOMBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO 1334, I CROSS, NAZRABAD MOHALLA, MYSORE.

¶12

SRI NINGANNA, S/O SRI MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, LALITHADRIPURA, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE.

¶13

SRI RAJESH, S/O SRI PARASHIVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO 111, JOCKY QUARTERS, LALITHAMAHAL ROAD, MYSORE.

¶14

¶15

WP No. 3920 of 2012

¶16

SRI SHIVAKUMAR, S/O SHIVALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, HAROHALLI, MYSORE, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶17

6(a) SMT.HEMALATHA, W/O SRI LATE SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶18

6(b) SRI H.S.RANJAN KUMAR, S/O SRI LATE SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.

¶19

6(c) KUM SAHANA H.S, S/O SRI LATE SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.

¶20

ALL ARE R/AT NO.204/1, SUAMANA CONVENT ROAD, HAROHALLI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 570028. (AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DT:02.02.2021.

¶21

SRI LAKSNMANA, S/O SRI CHELUVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO 147, LALITHADRIPURA, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE.

¶22

SRI RAMESH, S/O SRI SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, LALITHADRIPURA, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE.

¶23

SRI K N NANJEGOWDA, S/O SRI NINGEGOWDA,

¶24

¶25

WP No. 3920 of 2012

¶26

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO 61, KOKKAREHUNDI CHIKKANAKANAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶27

SRI K SATHISHA, S/O SRI R KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, ATI QUARTERS, LALITHAMAHAL ROAD, MYSORE.

¶28

…PETITIONERS

¶29

(BY SRI. V S NAIK, ADVOCATE, VK FILED FOR LR'S OF DECEASED P6 (A TO C)

¶30

AND:

¶31

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ADMINISTRATIVE TRAINING INSTITUTE, LALITHA MAHAL ROAD, MYSORE.

¶32

…RESPONDENT

¶33

(BY SRI BHOJE GOWDA T KOLLER, AGA FOR RESPONDENT STATE)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE LABOUR COURT, MYSORE, PERTAINING TO ANNEX-E AND GRANT THE PETITIONER FOLLOWING RELIEFS; QUASH THE AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, MYSORE, IN REF. NOS.29/2007 AND REF.NO.30/2007, REF. NO.32/2007 REF. NO.33/2007, REF. NO.34/2007, REF. NO.35/2007, REF. NO.36/2007,REF. NO.37/2007,REF. NO.39/2007,REF. NO.40/2007, DTD.6.7.11, THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEX-E AND ETC.,

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

WP No. 3920 of 2012

¶38

ORDER

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶40

Petitioners - workmen, claiming that they were

¶41

refused employment while working on daily wages with the respondent - Institute, filed a claim statement under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent - Institute denied the existence of jural relationship of employer and workmen.

¶42

The Labour court framed the following issues.

¶43

"1. Whether the first party is a workman within the meaning of I.D. Act, 1947?

¶44

2. Whether establishment wherein the first party was working is an industry?

¶45

3. Whether the first party in the above cases are entitled to any relief U/sec. 19 of Central Administrative Tribunal Act (or) Under Article 226 of Constitution of India?

¶46

4. Whether the first party is justified in raising dispute after 3 years of delay from the date of removal from service?

¶47

¶48

WP No. 3920 of 2012

¶49

5. Whether the 2nd party is justified in removing first party from service?

¶50

6. To what reliefs the first party entitled?"

¶51

The issue whether the respondent is an

¶52

industry was held in affirmative. The petitioners - workmen to substantiate that they were employed by the respondent - Institute, examined 1 witness as W.W.1 and marked documents at Exs.W1 to W27. The respondent examined one witness as M.W.1.

¶53

Ex.W.18 is the order passed by the Competent

¶54

Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, by which the respondent was directed to pay minimum wages and difference of wages as directed by the Authority and also for regularization in favour of the members of the Mysore Division General Employees Association. The said order

¶55

being ex-parte was confirmed by this Court in W.P.Nos.6470/1997 & 6808 to 6821/1997 c/w W.P.No.6901/1996. However, the respondent was reserved with liberty to prove whether the workers

¶56

¶57

WP No. 3920 of 2012

¶58

employed were the workers of the respondent or contract employees. Exs.W 5 to W.8 produced by the workmen to substantiate their claim that they were employed by the respondent, were disbelieved by the Labour Court.

¶59

Ex.W.5 is the communication issued to one

¶60

Sri. Shivakumar, with reference to settlement of his bill. Ex.W.6 is the cheque issued by the District Treasury in favor of Sri. Shivakumar. Ex.W.7 is the settlement of bill issued in favour of one Sri. Ramesha towards maintenance of ATI Garden. Ex.W.8 is the settlement of bill issued in favour of Ramesh with reference to maintenance of SIRD Garden. The Labour Court after examining these documents has held that the workmen have failed to establish that they were receiving wages from the respondent - Institute and that they were directly employed by the respondent.

¶61

The said documents, in my view, does not

¶62

disclose that the petitioners were working on daily wages with the respondent - Institute. M.W.1 in his cross-

¶63

¶64

WP No. 3920 of 2012

¶65

examination has categorically denied the existence of jural relationship of employer and workmen, and also denied that the said documents pertain to payment of wages to the workmen and the said documents pertain to payment of amount to the Contractor. Though normally adverse inference has to be drawn against the employer for nonproduction of Muster Roll / Salary Register, the Labour court has held that the workmen cannot take advantage of non-production of the said document since the dispute was raised after an inordinate delay of more than 11 years and the document at Ex.W.16 indicates that the bills and receipts were destroyed after expiry of prescribed period.

¶66

The findings recorded by the Labour Court are

¶67

based on the evidence on record and cannot be said to be based on improper evidence or insufficient evidence, and in the absence of perversity or arbitrariness in the findings recorded by the Labour Court, this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction cannot interfere with the findings recorded by the Labour Court.

¶68

¶69

WP No. 3920 of 2012

¶70

The petitioners - workmen have not offered any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of more

¶71

than 11 years in raising the dispute. The Labour court relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the dispute raised after inordinate delay of more than 11 years without offering any plausible explanation was not maintainable. The Labour Court after examining the material on record has held that the workmen had worked under the contractor in the garden of the respondent - Institute and after the contract period was over, the respondent was justified in refusing to give work to the workmen. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court.

¶72

Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

Sri Cheluva Raju S/O Sri Narasegowda v. the Director General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Cheluva Raju S/O Sri Narasegowda v. the Director General

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

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 B M Dhananjaya Vs the Managing Director

Sri. Arunkumar Navalli Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri. S Karunakaran Vs the Regional Transport Authority