Disposed

The Management of Nwkrtc v. Shamshuddin S/O Hasansab Attar

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2024WP/103948/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by NW KRTC challenging a Labour Court order directing payment of back wages. The Court directed the Labour Court to reconsider calculations involving an earlier deposit and dismissed the writ without adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner at liberty to furnish fresh calculations; Labour Court directed to consider and pass orders in accordance with law; Writ petition disposed of.

The Management of Nwkrtc Vs Shamshuddin S/O… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7689 WP No. 103948 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.103948/2022(L-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC NWKRTC, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD – 580 021.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI PRASHANT S. HOSMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SHAMSHUDDIN S/O. HASANSAB ATTAR, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: RAMAPUR SITE, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶15

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT DISPENSED WITH)

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 26/08/2019 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.06/2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7689 WP No. 103948 of 2022

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by

¶22

the order dated 26.08.2019 passed in Application No.6/2019 on the file of the Labour Court, Belagavi, by which, while partly allowing the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court directed the petitioner herein to pay Rs.13,39,718/to the respondent herein within two months from the date of the order. It is further directed that, failure on the part of the petitioner to pay the said amount would result in petitioner paying interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till realization.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aggrieved by the order passed in KID No.63/2011, the petitioner herein preferred petition in W.P. No.83113/2013 and the respondent herein preferred petition in W.P. No.70215/2012. That by a common order, this Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, while partly allowed the writ

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7689 WP No. 103948 of 2022

¶25

petition filed by the petitioner modifying the order of the Labour Court to the extent that the respondent is entitled

¶26

to get 25% of the back wages excluding the period of one year nine months from the date of compulsory retirement, and also, since the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.1,98,030/- before this Court, the said amount was directed to be released in favor of the respondent.

¶27

The respondent had filed the application in Application No.86/2012 claiming an amount of Rs.1,98,030/- based on the order passed in KID No.63/2011, and that the Labour Court had directed the petitioner herein to pay the said sum of Rs.1,98,030/- to the respondent. Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein had filed a petition in W.P. No.102868/2015 which was dismissed. It is his further submission that, the respondent who filed the present application before the Labour Court in Application No.63/2019 claimed wages

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7689 WP No. 103948 of 2022

¶29

from January-2012 to April-2017 to the tune of Rs.15,45,378/-, the Labour Court had however declined

¶30

to accept the calculation made by the made by the respondent herein, while accepted the calculation made by the petitioner which is Rs.13,39,718/-. He submits that though the petitioner herein had given a calculation of Rs.13,39,718/- due to inadvertence, the amount of Rs.1,98,030/- which was paid as noted hereinabove, has not been deducted. He submits that out of the amount

¶31

directed, the amount already paid needs be deducted.

¶32

The submission is taken on record.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner on a query

¶34

submits that the execution proceedings initiated by the respondents are still pending consideration in E.P. No.55/2020. If that be the case, the petitioner herein is at liberty to furnish fresh calculation including the amount of Rs.1,98,030/- which was paid to the respondent as per the order passed in KID No.63/2011.

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7689 WP No. 103948 of 2022

¶36

The Labour Court shall consider the said

¶37

calculations and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

VNP* / CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

The Management of Nwkrtc v. Shamshuddin S/O Hasansab Attar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of Nwkrtc v. Shamshuddin S/O Hasansab Attar

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.Ashwinkumar S/O. Prahlad Pise Vs Smt.Jayalaxmi W/O. Ashwinkumar Pise

Praveen S/O Ishwar Chavan Vs Mrs Vaishnavi W/O Praveen Chavan

Mr.Venkatraman D Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka

V. Eranna S/O.Nagappa Vs Pragati Grameena Bank

Jagadeesh S/O. Veerayya Karisiddimath Vs the General Manager

Shamidabi Vs the Deputy Commissioner Koppal