Corporation challenged a Labour Court award reinstating/recognising a workman appointed allegedly on compensatory grounds after land acquisition. The High Court found no record of appointment and held the award unsustainable since it rested only on the employer's failure to lead evidence. The award was quashed by certiorari.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:25480 WP No. 5394 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 5394 OF 2020 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GAURAV.G.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. AMARAVATHY.H.R., AGA FOR R2 AND R3; R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
NC: 2024:KHC:25480 WP No. 5394 of 2020
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.Gaurav.G.K., learned for the petitioners and
Smt.Amaravathy.H.R., learned AGA for respondent No.2 have appeared in person.
The issue revolves around the appointment and the denial of the work by the Corporation. The claim statement is filed along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-A. In the claim statement, the first respondent contends that the Mysuru City Corporation acquired their family land, and on compensatory grounds, he was appointed as a
worker by the Corporation on 09.06.1994. However, there is nothing on record to show that the Corporation appointed him as a worker. The Labor Court allowed the claim petition solely
on the ground that the Corporation did not lead evidence. The approach of the Labor Court is untenable. The reason is simple.
What is required to be considered is whether the first respondent was able to prove that the Corporation appointed him. As already noted above, the first respondent did not furnish any material to show that the Corporation appointed him as a worker. Hence, the award is bad in law. Therefore, the award is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside.
7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .
MRP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
Sd/JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the workman proved that the Corporation appointed him as a worker on compensatory grounds.
Whether the Labour Court's award allowing the claim solely because the Corporation led no evidence was tenable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Commissioner, Mysuru City Corporation
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Vani Vilas Water Works, Mysuru City Corporation
Swamy S/O Mari Chowda Nayaka
The Chief Secretary, Urban Development Authority, Government of Karnataka
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
