Partly allowed

The Management of Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. Smt. C Sujatha

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2024WA/244/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged the Single Judge's order directing reinstatement of a workman. The bench held that since the workman was employed elsewhere, reinstatement was not appropriate. They modified the order by directing the appellant to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 6,00,000.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to pay respondent a lump-sum amount of Rs. 6,00,000 within four weeks, failing which interest at 2% per month. Observations on CAG enquiry expunged.

The Management of Karnataka State Seeds… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10102-DB WA No. 244 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO. 244 OF 2023 (L-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

THE MANAGEMENT OF KARNATAKA STATE SEEDS CORPORATION LTD BEEJA BHAVAN,BELLARY ROAD HEBBAL,BENGALURU - 560 024 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR REGD. UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND THE MAIN OBJECT TO CARRY ON PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, DISTRIBUTION OF ALL AGRICULTURAL SEEDS

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. C.K.SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND :

¶15

SMT. C SUJATHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS D/O SRI. CHANDRAPPA RESIDING AT NO.35, 2^ND MAIN NEAR KRISHNA CHOULTRY MEENAKSHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. NAIK V S, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22/27.09.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.29288/18 (L-RES) AND GRANT THE RELIEF SOUTH IN WP No.29288/2018 (L-RES) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:10102-DB WA No. 244 of 2023

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, KRISHNA S DIXIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The challenge in this intra- court appeal is to a learned Single

¶24

Judge’s orders dated 22.09.2022 & 27.09.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.29288 of 2018, whereby the award of the Labour Court having been modified, a direction inter alia for reinstatement has

¶25

been issued. Operative portion of the order reads as under:

¶26

“i) Writ Petition in W.P.No.29288/2018 is dismissed.

¶27

ii) Writ Petition in W.P.No.33097/2018 is partly allowed.

¶28

iii) The award dated 05.04.2018 passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.15/2015 is set aside.

¶29

iv) A mandamus is issued directing the respondentCorporation to reinstate the petitioner - workwoman within a period of four weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order by providing continuity of service and other consequential benefits with additional amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation which shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶30

v) Considering the nature of observations made hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that there is also a need for an enquiry to be conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General as regards the manner in which the contract labourers are being engaged by Respondent. Whether the same is a genuine bonafide transaction or is it a veiled methodology adopted by the respondent, and whether such a methodology goes against the principles of welfare State as enshrined in the preamble of the constitution of India.

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10102-DB WA No. 244 of 2023

¶32

vi) The enquiry to be completed within a period of 12 months from today, and report is to be placed in this file.

¶33

vii) The Registrar (General) is directed to forward a copy of this order to the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s office for doing needful and on receipt of the report to place it on the records of this file.

¶34

viii) Thought he above matter is disposed, re list on 15th October 2023 for receipt of the enquiry report.”

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argues that both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge have grossly been misdirected in law, inasmuch as they had placed the onus of proof of employer-employee relationship on the appellant - employer when it ought to have been on the shoulders of workman. That apart, he invokes the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 in support of his contention that the statute permits outsourcing of labour through the contractor and accordingly the appellant-institution which answers the description of State u/a 12 of the Constitution of India, has hired the labour through a contradicting agency.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the observations made in clause (v) of the operative portion of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge are not sustainable,

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10102-DB WA No. 244 of 2023

¶38

they having some element of acidity. Learned counsel appearing for the workman though disputes this, now fairly agrees that the said observations may diluted . We appreciate this gesture and we do not deliberate more on this.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman vehemently opposes the appeal contending that both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge having held in favour of his client, there is no much scope for interference of this Court in view of a 7 Judges Bench decision of this Court in TAMMANNA & ORS. vs. MISS RENUKA & ORS, ILR 2009 KAR 1207. When a finding of fact has been recorded by the labour Court and a learned Single Judge after considering material on record has confirmed it. He contends, in a limited appropriate jurisdiction this Court cannot upset the same.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

¶41

(i) Both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge have held in favour of the employee-workman concerned cannot be disputed because of the material borne out by record.

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10102-DB WA No. 244 of 2023

¶43

The Labour Court has directed payment of a lumpsum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) only in lieu of prayer for reinstatement & backwages. Such a discretion avails to the labour Court is not disputed before us. However, the learned Single Judge after examining all aspects of the matter, has modified the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement and with backwages that are restricted to Rs.2,50,000/- otherwise. Be that as it may.

¶44

(ii) We are of a considered opinion that in matters like this ordinarily reinstatement is not granted more particularly, when the workman is now employed in another Article 12 Entity, as unanimously submitted at the Bar. Therefore, the question of uprooting her from that institution and implanting in the appellant institution will not serve justice of the case. That being said, we are of the view that the lis in question can be laid to rest by directing the appellant to make a lumpsum payment of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh) only to the respondent-workman within a specified period, so that the competing interests of the litigating parties can be justly balanced.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:10102-DB WA No. 244 of 2023

¶47

In the above circumstances, this appeal is allowed in part.

¶48

The order of the learned Single Judge is modified to the effect that the appellant shall pay to the respondent-workman a lumpsum amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh) only within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which it shall pay interest at the rate of 2% per mensum on the said amount.

¶49

The observations made in clause (v) of the operative portion of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge against the appellant herein stand expunged for all purposes.

Costs made easy.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

AHB/BSV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

The Management of Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. Smt. C Sujatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. Smt. C Sujatha

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 Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Vs R. Ramakrishna

Smt Yashodhamma Vs Sri Rajendra Kumar Kataria IAS

Sri Vijaykumar S a Vs Smt C Shikha

M/S Cathedral Parish Society, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Y L Nyamagoudar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Vajramma Vs Sri. Kumar Naik