A daily-wage sweeper in the Sericulture Department was refused employment without notice or compensation. The Labour Court found she had completed 240 days of continuous service and ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages. In writ proceedings, the High Court upheld the award.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.35581 OF 2015 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
BANGALORE. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP)
AND:
Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KARANIYAMMA, W/O K.R.MAGALI, AGE 52 YEARS, SWEEPER COLONY, NO.5/99, 5TH WARD, K.R.NAGAR, MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 602. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2013 PASSED BY LABOUR COURT, MYSORE IN I.I.D. NO.08/2012 AS PER ANNEXURE–A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2024:KHC:35833 WP No. 35581 of 2015
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
Assailing the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 30.09.2013 passed in I.I.D. No.8/2012 on the file of the Labour Court at Mysore (hereinafter referred to as the 'Labour Court' for brevity), the Inspector of Sericulture, Government Sericulture, is before this Court in this writ petition.
and the respondent as ‘workman’ for the sake of convenience.
the claim petition is that the workman was appointed as a Sweeper on daily wages in the year 1983, it is the case of the workman that the petitioner had denied the minimum wages and she had approached the Minimum Wages Authority directing the establishment to pay a sum of Rs.1,34,806/-, being the difference in the minimum wages
for the period from 01.04.2003 to 31.12.2007 on 18.08.2011, the establishment did not comply with the order passed by the authority which made the workman to approach the Court seeking recovery of the said amount. It is averred in the claim statement that in the meantime,
the establishment illegally terminated the workman from service on 31.12.2011, without issuing any notice nor paid any compensation and the mandatory requirement as required under Section 25F of the ID Act has not been complied by the establishment, as she has worked for more than 240 days continuously in every year till she was denied employment by the State.
establishment contending that she was not appointed as a sweeper and was working as a daily wager, she attended to sweeping work only two days in a week and that she has not put in 240 days of continuous service and there are no materials produced by her to show her continuous service for 240 days in a year. Further, the Sericulture Department is a government department which does not discharge sovereign functions of the State and as such, it is not an industry as defined under the ID Act, that there is no relationship of an employer and employee between them.
that the workman has worked in the establishment for more than 240 days in a year and the establishment has not complied with Section 25F of the ID Act, and by the impugned order allowed the petition in part and the action on the part of the establishment in refusing employment
to the workman on 31.12.2011 was set aside and was
directed to reinstate the workman into service to the post last held by her with 50% back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement with continuity of service and other consequential benefits.
Pleader for the petitioner-State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman.
was taken on a temporary basis for a limited period and that the workman has not worked continuously for 240 days in a year and thus, the question of invoking the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act would not arise. It is contended that the respondent has stopped attending her work and there is no termination by the petitioner.
12 months on daily wages and the same has been rightly considered by the Labour Court while passing the order of reinstatement which warrants no interference.
parties, the point that arises for consideration is,
“Whether the judgment and award of the Labour Court warrants any interference in the present facts and circumstances of the case?”
Labour Court was that the service of the workman, though employed on a daily wage basis, she has been in continuous service for 240 days and the termination of the
workman from service is without compliance of Section 25F of the ID Act. Section 25F of the ID Act reads as under:
“ 25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.— No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.”
where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer –for a period of one year, if he, during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of termination, has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days.
There are no materials forthcoming to indicate that the workman had not completed 240 days during the preceding 12 months and the burden which was on the employer has not been discharged.
NC: 2024:KHC:35833 WP No. 35581 of 2015
employer, the establishment could not have retrenched the workman without complying with Section 25F of the ID
Act and the point framed for consideration is answered against the petitioner and this Court pass the following:
ORDER
Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a daily-wage workman with over 240 days of service in the preceding 12 months could be terminated without complying with Section 25F of the ID Act?
Whether the Labour Court's award of reinstatement with back wages warranted interference in writ?
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Inspector of Sericulture, Government of Sericulture, Bethane Cell, K.R. Nagar
The Asst. Director, Sericulture, K.R. Nagar, Mysore District
Principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Agriculture and Horticulture Department, Vikas Soudha, Bangalore
Karaniyamma, W/o K.R. Magali
K.S. Hemalekha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
