Allowed

karnataka state road transport corporation v. Krishna

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2023WP/5124/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation sought to challenge an order directing payment to an employee. The High Court quashed the Labour Court order as the petitioner had already paid the directed amount to the respondent, who acknowledged receipt.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 16.07.2018 passed by the III Addl. Labour Court demanding payment of Rs.27,677/- is quashed.

karnataka state road transport corporation Vs Krishna — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:45988 WP No. 5124 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.5124 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGLAORE - 560 027, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

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

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

KRISHNA S/O VENKATAPPA, ADULT, R/O VANDARAGUPPE SILK FARM POST, CHENNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159. …RESPONDENT

¶13

(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶14

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

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:45988 WP No. 5124 of 2020

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person.

¶20

Emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 10.08.2021. A perusal of the postal shara depicts that the respondent is served. The respondent has neither made any efforts to engage advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶21

3. The brief facts are these:

¶22

The respondent was a Driver in the establishment of the Corporation. On 14.02.2000, he was on duty in the bus bearing No.KA-01-F-6559 that belonged to the Corporation that was plying from Bengaluru to Mysuru. When the bus was near Ramanagar, it hit against a Lorry, as a result of which he suffered grievous injuries. He was granted IOD (Injury on duty) facility for the period from 14.04.2000 to 31.01.2001.

¶23

The Chief Medical Officer submitted a medical report which stated that the respondent was not fit to drive the vehicle, hence recommended for light duty. The respondent didn't accept the offer of light duty, instead produced a medical

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45988 WP No. 5124 of 2020

¶25

certificate issued by St.John Medical College and Hospital, Bengaluru. The Corporation subjected him to medical examination again and the medical board submitted a report stating that he is not fit to drive the vehicle, hence the respondent was offered light duty, which he declined to accept.

¶26

On 07.11.2001, the respondent requested the Corporation to subject him to medical examination again. At his request, he was subjected to medical examination and a report was submitted that he was fit to resume duty. On 13.11.2001, the respondent resumed duty as a Driver and thereafter, the Corporation issued leave sanction order as regard to his absence from 01.02.2001 to 13.11.2001.

¶27

After a lapse of almost nine years, the workman filed an application under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Bengaluru in Application No.17/2010 claiming wages and expenses incurred towards medical treatment. The Labour Court vide order dated:13.02.2012 allowed the claim application and directed payment of Rs.53,343/- (Rupees Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Three only) towards wages of nine months.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:45988 WP No. 5124 of 2020

¶30

The Corporation questioned the order in W.P.No.57737/2013 and the petition was allowed in part and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court for fresh consideration.

¶31

After remand, the Labour Court vide order dated:16.07.2018, directed the Corporation to pay the respondent a sum of Rs.27,677/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Seven only) if the same is not paid to the applicant. 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.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner

¶35

in presenting her arguments strenuously urged that the amount ordered to be paid by the Labour Court is Rs.27,677/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Seven only) and the same has been paid to the workman. She argued by

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:45988 WP No. 5124 of 2020

¶37

saying that the respondent was offered alternate job and he did not discharge work from February 2001 till 13^th of November,

¶38

The details are as under:

¶39

From	To	Total number of days	Details of leave
01.02.2001	05.05.2001	94	Earned Leave
06.05.2001	22.09.2001	140	Half pay leave
23.09.2001	13.11.2001	52	Leave without wages

¶40

It is not in dispute that the workman met with an accident and he was offered alternate job and he did not discharge work from February 2001 to 13^th November, 2001. The leave sanction order has not been called into question by the respondent and a sum of Rs.27,677/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Seven only) has been paid. Needless to observe that what is ordered has already been paid by the Corporation and the same has been accepted by the workman. Since, the workman has acknowledged the receipt of Rs.27,677/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Seven only), the order of the Labour Court is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed.

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:45988 WP No. 5124 of 2020

¶42

¶43

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated:16.07.2018 passed by the III Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru in Application No.17/2010 vide Annexure-K is

¶44

quashed.

¶45

As a result, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

karnataka state road transport corporation v. Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

karnataka state road transport corporation v. Krishna

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

Sri Jayabharathi Co-Operative High School Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

Mr Mahesh Kumar Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Karnataka State Road Vs D.S. Srinivasagowda

M/S K C Das Private Limited Vs Mr. a H Devaraju

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs Rajappa

The Karnataka State Road Vs Sri. K L Krupakara