The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award that reinstated a workman with 60% back wages. The Court held the petitioner was an industry and the respondent a workman under the ID Act, finding no warrant for interference.
Writ petition dismissed; Labour Court award of 17.09.2011 confirmed.
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 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.50996 OF 2012 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT NAGAMANGALA MANDYA DISTRICT – 571432. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
PUTTAMMA W/O. SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, MULLAKATTE VILLAGE, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571432. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE AWARD PASSED BY LABOUR COURT, MYSORE ON 17.09.2011 IN REF. NO.94/1999 AND ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, BY ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT; QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 17.09.2011 PASSED BY LABOUR COURT, MYSORE IN REF. NO.94/1999 (VIDE ANNEXURE-F).
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Nagamangala assails the order dated 17.09.2011 in Ref. No.94/1999 on the file of the Labour Court, Mysore, whereby, the reference made by the respondent was allowed in part, directing the petitioner to reinstate the workman into service as per the guidelines provided in Ex.M.4-the Government Circular and that the workman is not entitled for back wages from the date of removal till the date of reference, i.e., 08.06.1999, however she is entitled for 60% back wages from 09.06.1999 till the date of reinstatement.
exparte order came to be passed by the Labour Court, the said order was assailed before this Court in W.P. No.2808/2009, this Court allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Labour Court by the impugned order directed the petitioner to reinstate
the workman into service with 60% back wages from 09.06.1999 till the date of reinstatement.
at the Women and Child Development Centre from 21.06.1982 to 08.01.1984.
NC: 2024:KHC:6582 WP No. 50996 of 2012
the ground assailed before this Court in the earlier writ petition was that the Labour Court had placed the petitioner exparte and the order came to be passed without hearing the petitioner and this Court, in order to afford an opportunity to the petitioner remanded the matter for fresh consideration, in the counter statement, the petitioner has admitted that the respondent was working under the control of Executive Officer (petitioner) as daily wage employee and thus, the petitioner contention that the respondent was not working under petitioner fails and the Labour Court by analyzing all the material documents and evidence on record has rightly held that the petitioner comes strictly under the definition of ‘industry’ and the respondent comes under the definition of ‘workman’ within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
NC: 2024:KHC:6582 WP No. 50996 of 2012
created and the inordinate delay of 15 years was condoned on the ground it was not a stale dispute since the respondent was consistently seeking her grievance and held that the workman was entitled for reinstatement into service, however, backwages was denied from the date of removal from service, viz., 09.01.1984 till the date of reference viz., 08.06.1999 and that she is entitled to 60% backwages from 09.06.1999 till the date of reinstatement, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent has now attained the age of superannuation, be that as it may, the respondent is fighting for her rights since 1984, her rights were denied since then, if the respondent has attained the age of superannuation, she would entitled for all the benefits that has occurred to her, the respondent has rendered continuous service of 240 days in petitioner undertaking before removal from service as is evident from material on record, which fact is not disputed by the petitioner and the manner in which, the Labour Court passed the order, this Court is of the considered view that the same does not warrant any
interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
i. Writ petition stands dismissed . ii. Impugned order dated 17.09.2011 in Ref. No.94/1999 on the file of the Labour Court, Mysore stands confirmed.
In view of disposal of the main petition, pending I.As do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same are disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
MBM
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition challenging the Labour Court award directing reinstatement and back wages can be interferred with.
Whether the petitioner's contention that the disciplinary authority is a daily wage employee affects the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Whether the inordinate delay of 15 years in determining back wages warrants quashing of the impugned order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT NAGAMANGALA MANDYA DISTRICT
PUTTAMMA
K.S. HEMALEKHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
