Allowed

Hanagodu Grama Panchayath v. H.P. Rajashekar

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2023WP/58505/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition by a Village Panchayat challenging Labour Court orders. The Court quashed the orders directing payment of dues under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, holding that applications are not maintainable without prior adjudication of the claim, as the Panchayat disputed the respondent's entitlement.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari quashing Labour Court orders dated 31.07.2013 and 05.03.2014; Writ Petition allowed.

Hanagodu Grama Panchayath Vs H.P. Rajashekar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:42597 WP No. 58505 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.58505 OF 2015 (L-ID)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

HANAGODU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HANAGODU, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105. REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVLOPMENT OFFICER.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. B.J.SOMYAJI., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

H.P.RAJASHEKAR S/O PUTTACHARI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, HEGGANDUR VILLAGE, HANAGODU POST, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU TALUK - 571 105.

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR KASHIMATH., ADVOCATE)

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:42597 WP No. 58505 of 2015

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Sri.B.J.Somayaji., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Somashekar Kashimath., learned counsel for respondent have appeared in person.

¶21

The respondent - H.P.Rajashekar contended that he was an employee of the petitioner - Hanagodu Village Panchayat as a Water Man-cum-Bill Collector and he joined the services on 22.04.1988. He was promoted to Clerk-cum-Bill Collector of Hanagodu Village Panchayath as per the Resolution dated 10.02.1995. He discharged his duties sincerely and honestly. He contended that he was suspended on 01.09.2005 on baseless allegations. It is said that the Panchayat did not conduct an inquiry and did not pay subsistence allowances during the period of suspension. Hence, he sought to contend that the suspension order was illegal. Hence, he applied under Section 33 C (2) of the I. D Act and sought a direction to pay a sum of Rs.12,600/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Six Hundred only) for nine months i.e., up to May 2006.

¶22

After the service of the notice, the Panchayat of Hanagodu Village appeared through their counsel and filed

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42597 WP No. 58505 of 2015

¶24

objections contenting that the application is not maintainable. It contended that at no point in time, the applicant/ respondent was employed as a bill collector. The applicant/ respondent who was discharging his duties as Water Man was assigned with additional power to collect water bills. But he was never appointed as Bill Collector or Clerk-cum Bill Collector. Since the Hanagodu Village Panchayat received several complaints from the public alleging misappropriation of funds and misuse of power, hence, the Panchayat withdrew the additional power, and he was instructed to continue work only as a Water-Man. They specifically contended that they never passed a suspension order. Hence, they prayed for the rejection of the application. The Labour Court vide order dated 31.07.2013 allowed the application.

¶25

As things stood thus, the respondent filed one more application under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the file of Labour Court, Mysuru in Application No.31/2013 requesting the Labour Court to direct the Panchayat to pay the amount due to him from 01.06.2006 to 15.09.2013. It is said that after the filing of this application, the notice was duly served on the Panchayat. Despite the service of

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:42597 WP No. 58505 of 2015

¶28

notice, it remained absent, and it was placed ex-parte. The Labour Court vide order dated 05.03.2014 allowed the application. The order dated:31.07.2013 passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru in Application No.16/2006 vide Annexure-D and the order dated:05.03.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru in Application No.31/2013 vide Annexure-G are called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent have urged several contentions.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decision:

¶31

STATE BANK OF INDIA V/s. RAMCHANDRA

¶32

DHUBEY AND OTHERS - AIR 2000 SC 3734.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the following decision:

¶34

VIJAYA BANK V/s. SHYAMAL KUMAR LODH

¶35

- (2010) 7 SCC 635.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:42597 WP No. 58505 of 2015

¶38

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers and the records with utmost care.

¶39

The following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the applications filed by the respondent are maintainable?

¶40

Whether the orders passed by the Labor Court require interference?

¶41

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the Hanagodu Village Panchayath specifically contended that the applicant/ respondent was appointed as Water Man (Neerugunti) and incidentally he was assigned with the additional power to collect the water bill. He was never appointed as a Bill Collector or Clerk-cum-Bill Collector. Several complaints were received from the public against the applicant alleging misappropriation of funds and misuse of power. The Panchayath was constrained to withdraw the additional responsibility that was conferred on the applicant as Bill-collector. He was instructed to continue work only as a Water Man. At no point in time, he was appointed as a bill collector. Hence, a Communication was issued to him on

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:42597 WP No. 58505 of 2015

¶44

01.09.2005 intimating that the additional responsibility that was conferred on the applicant as Bill-collector is withdrawn and further, he was instructed to continue work only as a Water Man. In this background, what is required to be considered is whether the said Communication dated 01.09.2005 amounts to suspension. The answer is no. The reason is quite simple. It is a simple Communication, whereby, the applicant was informed about the withdrawal of additional responsibility. Hence, it cannot be construed as a suspension order. Furthermore, the communication does not give any right for the respondent to claim the amount by filing an application under Section 33 C (2) of the I.D Act. The Labor Court overlooked this aspect of the matter and erroneously proceeded to allow the applications. The same is unsustainable in law.

¶45

It is not in dispute that the litigation relates to the applications filed under Section 33 C (2) of the I.D. Act. The scope and ambit of Section 33 C (2) have been defined by catena of decisions by the Apex Court. In other words, where a case involves an investigation into the applicant’s right to the relief and the corresponding liability of the employer, such an

¶46

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:42597 WP No. 58505 of 2015

¶47

investigation is impressible in an application under Section 33 C (2) of the Act.

¶48

Suffice it to note that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33 C (2) was dealt with by the Supreme Court exhaustively in several cases including MYSORE STATE ROAD

¶49

TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE Vs. SK ATHANI

¶50

reported in AIR 1973 SC 2448 . Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33 C (2) is analogous to the execution Court. Section 33 C (2) is a proceeding like an execution.

¶51

In the present case, the applicant has claimed that he is entitled to the amount. But it is relevant to note that there has been no adjudication. The Panchayat has disputed the entitlement of the applicant to claim the amount for the previously mentioned period. Therefore, in the absence of adjudication of the right of the respondent to recover the amount in question from the Panchayat, the Labor Court could not have decided the liability in a proceeding under Section 33 C (2) of the I.D. Act.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2023:KHC:42597 WP No. 58505 of 2015

¶54

For the reasons stated above, the applications filed under Section 33 C (2) are liable to be rejected and accordingly, they are rejected.

¶55

Counsel for the petitioner and respondent have relied upon the decision of the Apex Court, but I do not think that the law is in doubt. Each decision turns on its facts. The present case is also tested in light of the aforesaid decisions.

¶56

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated:31.07.2013 passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru in Application No.16/2006 vide Annexure-D and the order dated:05.03.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru in Application No.31/2013 vide Annexure-G are quashed.

¶57

7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.

¶58

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

Hanagodu Grama Panchayath v. H.P. Rajashekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanagodu Grama Panchayath v. H.P. Rajashekar

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

Mr Dinakar Orkin M D Vs K Manjunath

The Chief Secretary Vs Sri T S Manjunatha

M/S Sudarshan Telecom Vs Assistant Labour Commissioner

Smt Gulabi Shedthi Vs Smt Narasi Poojarthi

Sri. v. Rudraswamy Vs the Divisional Controller

The Management of M/S. Amar Jyothi Electricals Vs Mr. C. Anand