Dismissed

G Mahadevamma v. the Chief Traffic Manager

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2023WP/48638/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected a writ petition challenging the Labour Court's order dismissing a claim for Voluntary Retirement pay. The court held the application was rejected outright due to the petitioner's failure to prove her husband's last drawn basic pay after a significant delay.

What did the court decide?

The application was rejected; no order for enforcement of the VR scheme was granted.

G Mahadevamma Vs the Chief Traffic Manager — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:37876 WP No. 48638 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.48638 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

G. MAHADEVAMMA W/O LATE H.T.NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A NO.208, JANATHA COLONY, MADANAYAKA HALLI, MADAVARA POST, BANGALORE - 560 123. (BY SRI. M.C.BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. …RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE)

¶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 PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:37876 WP No. 48638 of 2018

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Sri.M.C.Basavaraju., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

¶19

The petitioner's husband was permanent employee of the respondent Corporation and as per the voluntary retirement scheme introduced by the Corporation, he took voluntary retirement on medical grounds. It has been specifically contended by the petitioner that her husband's last drawn basic pay was Rs.9,046/- (Rupees Nine Thousand and Forty Six only) and hence filed an application under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the III Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru in Application No.01/2016. The Corporation filed its objection to the application. The Labour Court vide order dated:02.12.2017 rejected the application. It is this order that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC:37876 WP No. 48638 of 2018

¶23

The point that requires consideration is whether the Labour Court is justified in rejecting the application.

¶24

Suffice it to note that the petitioner's husband H.T.Narayanappa took voluntary retirement on 01.11.2006. Strangely, his wife moved an application under Section 33 C (2) of the I.D Act after a lapse of almost ten years claiming the amount mainly on the ground that her husband was working as a Driver at Depot-9 and his last drawn basic pay was Rs.9,046/- (Rupees Nine Thousand and Forty Six only). The Labour Court concluded that the applicant has not produced a scrap of paper before the Court to show that her husband's basic pay was Rs.9,046/- (Rupees Nine Thousand and Forty Six only). The Labour Court also concluded that the applicant has not even produced any salary slip showing the basic pay of the deceased H.T.Narayanappa and rejected the application.

¶25

Sri.M.C.Basavaraju., learned counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments vehemently contended that the Labour court has failed to accord an opportunity for the applicant to produce the documents. He argued by saying that the order of the Labour Court is unsustainable in law.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:37876 WP No. 48638 of 2018

¶28

I am not inclined to accept the said contention. The reason is simple. It is not in dispute that the workman took voluntary retirement with effect from 01.11.2006 and his wife moved an application seeking certain amount by filing an application under Section 33 C (2) of the I.D Act after a lapse of ten years. The main contention of the petitioner is that her husband's last drawn basic pay was Rs.9,046/- (Rupees Nine Thousand and Forty Six only), but there is nothing on record to show that the basic pay of the deceased workman is Rs.9,046/(Rupees Nine Thousand and Forty Six only). Furthermore, even before the Labour Court also the applicant did not produce any documents in support of her contention. The Labour Court extenso referred to the material on record and rightly rejected the application. I find no grounds to interfere with the order of the Labour Court. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be rejected.

¶29

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is rejected .

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 33

G Mahadevamma v. the Chief Traffic Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Mahadevamma v. the Chief Traffic Manager

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

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Veerabasappa Kupasad Vs the Divisional Controller Ksrtc

Veerabasappa Kupasad Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri. H. C. Lokesh Vs the Divisional Controller

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Yashwanth G E

K Mahadevaiah Vs Managing Director