Allowed

Karnataka State Road v. a Ramakrishna

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2024WP/2353/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC challenged a Labour Court award granting a reinstated conductor consequential benefits under Section 33(c)(2) of the I.D. Act. The High Court held that since the reinstatement award made no provision for consequential benefits, such an application was not maintainable, quashed the award and allowed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issued; order dated 15.03.2013 of I Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore in Application No.6/2011 quashed; writ petition allowed.

Karnataka State Road Vs a Ramakrishna — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:24751 WP No. 2353 of 2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 2353 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, BANGALORE, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

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

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High

¶12

Court of Karnataka

¶13

A.RAMAKRISHNA S/O THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, CONDUCTOR, BC NO.5880, BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, BANGALORE, R/O AMMANALLUR VILLAGE AND POST, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. HARSHA.G., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. R.RADHA., ADVOCATE)

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:24751 WP No. 2353 of 2015

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Harsha.G., learned counsel on behalf of Smt.R.Radha., for the respondent have appeared in person.

¶22

2. The brief facts are these:

¶23

It is stated that the respondent was working as a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He was dismissed from service on 07.03.2004. He raised a dispute in I.D.No.68/2006. On 23.05.2008 the respondent was directed to be reinstated into service without continuity of service, without backwages by withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect. The award came to be published on 25.06.2008. The award came into force on 24.07.2008. The workman was reinstated into service as per the award of the Labour Court on 26.09.2008. The workman filed an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the I.D. Act. The Labour Court vide award dated:15.03.2013 allowed the application. It is this order that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petitions.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respective parties have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:24751 WP No. 2353 of 2015

¶26

behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers and the records with utmost care.

¶27

The point that requires consideration is whether the application filed by the respondent under Section 33(c)(2) is maintainable.

¶28

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The respondent was a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. On account of certain misconduct, he came under a disciplinary proceedings and he was removed from service. He raised the dispute before the Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D.No.68/2006 (Old No.33/2004). The Labour Court vide award dated:23.05.2008 allowed the claim petition in part and the order of dismissal was set-aside and directed the Corporation reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service but without backwages by withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect.

¶29

As the matter stood thus, the respondent moved an application under Section 33(c)(2) of I.D. Act before the Labour Court in the year 2011. He contended that he has been denied the legitimate right accrued to him by way of consequential benefits. The Corporation filed its objections. Ex.A11 is the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:24751 WP No. 2353 of 2015

¶32

award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.68/2006. A careful perusal of the same would reveal that the Labour Court setaside the order of punishment and reinstated that workman into service with continuity of service but without backwages by withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect. There is no order for consequential benefits. The award is silent about the consequential benefits. If that be so, moving an application under Section 33(c)(2) and seeking consequential benefits does not arise. The application is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed, accordingly it is dismissed. Therefore, this court deems it proper to quash the order of the Labour Court.

¶33

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated:15.03.2013 passed by the I Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore in Application No.6/2011 is quashed.

¶34

Resultantly, Writ Petition is allowed .

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

MRP

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Karnataka State Road v. a Ramakrishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road v. a Ramakrishna

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

S . Revanna S/O Siddalingaiah Vs the Assistant Director

B K Umesh Vs the Managing Director

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs a v Sampath Kumar

Shivaramachary Vs Management of Fouress Engineering Limited

Shilpa D Raj Vs Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd.

Sri B G Janardhan Vs Divisional Controller