Disposed

The Management of Institute v. K.Nagabhusan

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2024WP/17298/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Writ Petition No. 17298 of 2014 disposed of the petition challenging a Labour Court order that directed the management to pay salary arrears. The Court ruled that management must take effective steps to release funds from the State Government as per the compromise terms.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner management is directed to take effective action to get the workman's arrears of salary released from respondent No. 2 and disburse the same within four weeks.

The Management of Institute Vs K.Nagabhusan — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:5753 WP No. 17298 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.17298 OF 2014 (L-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE MANAGEMENT OF INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION TRUST (REGD.) BY IT’S CHAIRMAN & MANAGING TURSTEE BY H.N. NAGARAJ S/O. H.S.N. ROA, AGE 75 YEARS, NO.9, S.PURAM, MYSORE – 570 009. ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI M. RAGHAVENDRA ACHAR, ADVOCATE (V.C.))

¶9

AND:

¶10

K. NAGABHUSAN S/O. KEMPALAKKAIAH, PEON, INSTITUTION OF EDUCATION, GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSORE – 570 008.

¶11

Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND LABOUR, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R-2)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE VIDE ANNEXURE-G THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT, MYSORE IN APPLICATION NO.2/2006 DT: 19.07.2013 BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER.

¶15

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

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:5753 WP No. 17298 of 2014

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner – Management of Institute of

¶19

Education Trust (“Management” for short) assails the order dated 19.07.2013 in Application No.2/2006 on the file of the Labour Court, Mysore (“Labour Court” for short), whereby, the application filed by the respondent – workman under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the ID Act” for the sake of convenience) was allowed directing the respondent – Management to pay the arrears of salary and also directed the Management to take all effective steps within two months from the date of the said order to get the arrears of salary released from respondent No.2 – Government and to disburse the same to the applicant.

¶20

Heard Sri M.Raghavendra Achar, learned counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing; Sri V.s.Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt. Spoorthi V., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2.

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5753 WP No. 17298 of 2014

¶22

Respondent No.1 was working as a peon in the

¶23

establishment of the petitioner – Management, on account of certain irregularities and misconduct, the workman was dismissed from service on 28.02.1981. The workman raised a dispute before the Labour Court and the Labour Court allowed the reference in part and directed the workman to be reinstated into service with full back wages. The Management preferred writ petition before this Court and this Court vide order dated 28.08.1998, modified the order of the Labour Court holding that the petitioner is entitled for 60% back wages instead of 100%. Thereafter, the writ appeal preferred by the Management was compromised by the parties under the following terms:

¶24

(1) Direction for reinstatement with continuity of service remains unaltered.

¶25

(2) Order for payment of 60% backwages is set aside.

¶26

(3) The workman will not be entitled to any backwages from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement (1-4-1997).

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:5753 WP No. 17298 of 2014

¶29

(4) In regard to the emoluments payable from 1.4.1997 to date, the Management shall pay a lumpsum of Rs.50,000-00 in addition to the monetary payments that have been made to the workman.

¶30

(5) The said sum of Rs.50,000-00 shall be paid in two equal monthly instalments i.e., Rs.25,000.00 on 1-4-2002 and Rs.25,000.0 on 1-6-2002.

¶31

(6) The Management shall make a request to the State Government for release of full salary of the first respondent workman from 1-4-1997 to date and if such amount is released, the same shall be passed on to the workman less Rs.50,000-00 which is paid by the Management. It is made clear that liability of the Management to pay anything in excess of Rs.50,000-00 will arise only if the State Government releases such additional payment.

¶32

(7) The State Government - third respondent shall consider the request of the appellant for release of full salary of the first respondent for the period 1-4-1997 to date in accordance with law.

¶33

(8) First respondent will be entitled to time scale applicable to the post with effect from this date with continuity of service.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:5753 WP No. 17298 of 2014

¶35

It is the case of the petitioner that, pursuant ot

¶36

the settlement entered into between the parties in the writ appeal as per clause (6) of the terms of the compromise, the Management made a request to the Deputy Director to convey the approval and also requested for release of the salary. That respondent No.2, by its order dated 07.02.2003, conveyed approval for fixation of pay and also informed that respondent No.1 – workman is eligible for all financial benefits. In the meanwhile, the workman approached the Labour Court under Section 33(c)(2) of the ID Act as per the terms of the settlement, to release the full salary. The Labour Court, by the impugned order, directed the Management to pay the arrears of salary of Rs.1,89,960/- and further directed the Management to take all effective steps to get the arrears of salary released from respondent No.2 – Government and disburse the same to the applicant within two weeks from the date of its order. The impugned order of the Labour Court is by calculating the arrears of salary of the applicant as per the Government Circulars, Gazette Notification and revision of

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:5753 WP No. 17298 of 2014

¶38

pay scales from time to time. The fact that the workman is entitled for arrears of salary is not in dispute. The only contention of the petitioner – Management is that, as per Clause 6 of the terms of settlement, the Management has to only make a request to the State Government to release the full salary to respondent No.1 – workman and the liability of the Management is only to the extent of Rs.50,000/- and the entire liability to pay the remaining full salary lies upon the State and as such, the application under Section 33(c)(2) of the ID Act was not maintainable. The terms of the compromise are clear that the Management has to make a request and in turn, the State shall consider the request of the Management and release the full salary of respondent No.1, that is the specific direction of the Labour Court as is evident from the order of the Labour Court which does not warrant interference by this Court, however, in light of the clear terms, respondent No.1 – Management is directed to take effective action to get the arrears of salary released from respondent No.2 – Government and disburse the same to

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:5753 WP No. 17298 of 2014

¶41

the petitioner – workman within a period of four weeks

¶42

from today.

¶43

With the above observations, the writ petitions

¶44

stands disposed of.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

The Management of Institute v. K.Nagabhusan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of Institute v. K.Nagabhusan

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 Eshwarappa B Vs the Divisional Controller

Mrs Aneena George Vs Mr Sunil Kumar Mehto

M/S Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Limited Vs Regional Pf Commissioner -Ii

Sri M Veerabhadrappa Vs the Managing Director

The Management of Emc Software and Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Mr. Subramanian Kaleeshwaran

Smt Vidya v Raikar Vs the Karnataka State Road and Transport Corporation