Allowed

The Executive Engineer v. R Venkatesh

Karnataka HC31 Oct 2023WP/44386/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed against a Labour Court award directing reinstatement for an employee dismissed for unauthorized absence. The Court held that due to an inordinate delay of fifteen years in raising the dispute, the claim was stale, and the Labour Court ought to have rejected it.

What did the court decide?

The award dated 01.02.2014 passed by the Labour Court in Reference No.05/2011 was quashed, the order of dismissal dated 16.08.1996 was confirmed, and the writ petition was allowed.

The Executive Engineer Vs R Venkatesh — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:38558 WP No. 44386 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.44386 OF 2014 (L-TER)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD., CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116.

¶8

…PETITIONER (BY MS. MEDINI RAO., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HARIKRISHNA.S.HOLLA., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

R.VENKATESH S/O RAMA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, EX-ASSISTANT LINEMAN, CH NO.574, R/O OPP.PANDURANGA TEMPLE, PANDURANGA NAGARA, CHIKKAPETE, TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:38558 WP No. 44386 of 2014

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Ms.Medini Rao., learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person.

¶18

2. The brief facts are these:

¶19

The respondent R.Venkatesh was Assistant Lineman working in Gandasi Sub-division. He remained absent from duty from 10.06.1992. He abandoned the service and not attended the work. Hence, the disciplinary authority issued a notice on 27.12.1995 to the home address given by him in the Service Register. The notice issued to the respondent was returned from the postal authorities as unserved. In view of this, the disciplinary authority requested the KPTCL to publish the notice in the newspaper Prajavani about his unauthorized absence from 10.06.1992. A notice was published in Prajavani newspaper on 15.04.1996 that if the respondent does not attend the work, he would be dismissed. Inspite of the service of notice in the leading newspaper, the respondent did not report to the duty and continued to remain absent from the

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:38558 WP No. 44386 of 2014

¶22

office duty and abandoned the services by remaining continuously absent.

¶23

The disciplinary authority i.e., the Executive Engineer considered all the aspects of the matter and passed the order of dismissal on 16.08.1996. The respondent raised a dispute after a lapse of fifteen years. The Government referred the matter to the Labour Court, Chikmagalur in Reference No.5/2011. The Labour Court vide award dated:01.02.2014 allowed the reference and directed reinstatement together with continuity of service with full backwages from the date of dismissal from service till the actual date of reinstatement. 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.

¶24

Learned counsel for the 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.

¶25

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

¶26

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:38558 WP No. 44386 of 2014

¶27

Ms.Medini Rao., learned counsel for the petitioner in

¶28

presenting her arguments vehemently contended that there is an inordinate delay of almost fifteen years in raising the dispute. Counsel therefore, submits that the Labour Court ought to have rejected the reference on the grounds of delay and laches.

¶29

The issue revolves around the delay and laches. It is not in dispute that the delinquent came under a disciplinary inquiry on the charge of misconduct i.e., unauthorized absence and he was dismissed from the service on the charge of proved misconduct back in the year 1996 i.e., on 16.08.1996. Strangely, he raised a dispute in the year 2011. In the claim statement, the respondent has contended that there is no delay in raising the dispute. The Corporation filed a detailed counter statement and denied the averments made in the claim statement and they contended that there is an inordinate delay in raising the dispute.

¶30

The Apex Court in PRABHAKAR Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:38558 WP No. 44386 of 2014

¶33

reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 and has laid down the law about delay and laches. In paragraph No.42.6 and 44, the Apex Court has held as under:

¶34

"42.6. In contrast, in those cases where there was no agitation by the workman against his termination and the dispute is raised belatedly and the delay or laches remain unexplained, it would be presumed that he had waived his right or acquiesced into the act of termination and, therefore, at the time when the dispute is raised it had become stale and was not an "existing dispute." In such circumstances, the appropriate Government can refuse to make reference. In the alternative, the Labour Court/ Industrial Court can also hold that there is no "industrial dispute" within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act and, therefore, no relief can be granted.

¶35

44. To summarise, although there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the ID Act, yet it is for the "appropriate Government" to consider whether it is expedient or not to make the reference. The words "at any time" used in Section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation in making an order of reference and laws of limitation are not applicable to proceedings under the ID Act. However, the policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed inasmuch as

¶36

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:38558 WP No. 44386 of 2014

¶37

unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay as, apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling effect which it is likely on the employers' financial arrangement and to avoid dislocation of an industry."

¶38

Reverting to the facts of the case, the order of punishment was passed in the year 1996 i.e., on 16.08.1996.

¶39

Applying the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in PRABHAKAR 's case, the agitation of the workman against his termination and the dispute raised by him is raised belatedly. Hence, I have no hesitation in concluding that the dispute had become stale and hence the Labour Court ought to have rejected the claim on the ground of delay and laches. In any view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court cannot be sustained. The Award of the Labour Court is otherwise erroneous and unjust. Since the reference is rejected on the grounds of delay and laches, there is nothing to discuss on the merits of the case. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:38558 WP No. 44386 of 2014

¶42

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Award dated:01.02.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Chikmagalur in Reference No.05/2011 vide Annexure-B is quashed. The order

¶43

of dismissal dated:16.08.1996 is confirmed.

¶44

10. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

The Executive Engineer v. R Venkatesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer v. R Venkatesh

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 K B Honnuraswamy Vs the Managing Director

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M/S Srinivasa Fine Arts(P) Limited

Sri. Paramesh N Vs the Management of Mtr Foods Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Konark Power Projects Limited Vs Sri H Kamaraj

Bangalore Metropolitan Vs K v Seetharam

The Chief Secretary Vs Sri Manjaiah