Dismissed

Ganganna v. the Karnataka State Small Industries

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2024WP/6069/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross writ petitions by a dismissed workman and the Corporation against a Labour Court award setting aside dismissal with 25% back wages after superannuation. The High Court found no delay in raising the dispute, upheld the finding of discrimination vis-a-vis the superior officer, and declined to interfere with the discretionary back-wages award.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ganganna Vs the Karnataka State Small… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:49913 WP No. 6069 of 2024 C/W WP No. 13598 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 6069 OF 2024 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 13598 OF 2023 (L-RES)

¶6

IN WP. 6069 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GANGANNA S/O ERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT PURADA GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE, NITTUR POST, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR-572 223.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K.B.NARAYANASWAMY., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 010. KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKING.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. G.NARASI REDDY., ADVOCATE)

¶16

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

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:49913 WP No. 6069 of 2024 C/W WP No. 13598 of 2023

¶20

IN WP. 13598 OF 2023

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

THE KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

¶23

…PETITIONER

¶24

(BY SRI.G.NARASI REDDY., ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

GANGANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE. ERAIAH, PURADA GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE, NITTUR POST, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, PIN-572 223.

¶27

…RESPONDENT

¶28

(BY SRI. K.B.NARAYANASWAMY., ADVOCATE)

¶29

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

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶31

COMMON ORAL ORDER

¶32

IN W.P.No.6069/2024

¶33

Sri.K.B.Narayana Swamy, counsel for the petitioner, and

¶34

Sri.G.Narasi Reddy., counsel for the respondent, appeared in person.

¶35

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49913 WP No. 6069 of 2024 C/W WP No. 13598 of 2023

¶36

IN W.P.No.13598/2023

¶37

Sri.G.Narasi Reddy., counsel for the petitioner, and Sri.K.B.Narayana Swamy, counsel for the respondent, appeared in person.

¶38

For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and ranking before the Labour Court.

¶39

2. The brief facts are these:

¶40

The first party Ganganna joined the services of the Corporation as a Group-D employee in 1986. He was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant. He came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct and was visited with an order of punishment i.e., dismissed from service on 18.11.2010 and it was also ordered to recover 25% of Rs.10,90,007/- from him. The first party preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same was rejected. Thereafter, he raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer and the conciliation also failed. On failure, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Bengaluru in Reference No.56/2015. The Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49913 WP No. 6069 of 2024 C/W WP No. 13598 of 2023

¶42

parties led evidence on the merits of the case. The Labour Court vide award dated 10.01.2018 allowed the petition in part to set aside the order of dismissal and directed the Corporation to reinstate the first party with continuity of service with 25% back wages.

¶43

Aggrieved by the award, the Corporation preferred a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.52402/2018. This Court vide order dated 23.01.2020 remanded the matter to provide an opportunity for the Corporation to adduce evidence before the Labour Court. On remand, the Labour Court vide award dated 05.12.2022 set aside the order of dismissal. Since the first party had attained the age of superannuation, his prayer for reinstatement was rejected and the Corporation was directed to pay back wages at the rate of 25%.

¶44

The workman assailed the award of the Labour Court seeking full back-wages and the Corporation has assailed the award of the Labour Court in these Writ Petitions on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petitions.

¶45

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:49913 WP No. 6069 of 2024 C/W WP No. 13598 of 2023

¶48

Counsel Sri.G.Narasi Reddy., in presenting his arguments submits that the award of the Labour Court is arbitrary and contrary to the facts and material evidence on record.

¶49

Next, he submits that the Labour Court ought to have dismissed the complaint filed by the workman on the grounds of delay and laches.

¶50

A further submission is made that the Labour Court has erred in concluding that there is discrimination and victimization in punishing the workman as the co-accused Gopinath, Manager was imposed with a minor punishment.

¶51

Counsel vehemently contended that as the workman had attained the age of superannuation, the question of paying back wages at the rate of 25% did not arise. He drew the attention of the Court to Annexure-D, the letter written by Ganganna to contend that the workman had admitted the misappropriation and sought time to pay the alleged misappropriation amount by selling his ancestral property. He argued by saying that when the workman himself has admitted the misappropriation, the question of payment of 25% of back wages does not arise.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:49913 WP No. 6069 of 2024 C/W WP No. 13598 of 2023

¶54

Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. Counsel, therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed.

¶55

By way of reply, counsel Sri.K.B.Narayana Swamy., Justified the award of the Labour Court. However, he submits that the Labour Court has erred in denying full back-wages to the workman. Counsel, therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed.

¶56

Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers

¶57

with care.

¶58

The short point that arises for consideration is whether the award of the Labour Court requires interference.

¶59

It is contended by the Corporation that the complaint raised by the workman ought to have been rejected on the grounds of delay and laches. In this Court also he has adhered to the said contention. The said contention cannot be accepted. The reason is plain. As against the order of dismissal,

¶60

the workman had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the appeal was rejected in the year 2012 i.e., on 15.12.2012 subsequently, the dispute was raised and as such,

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:49913 WP No. 6069 of 2024 C/W WP No. 13598 of 2023

¶63

there is no delay in raising the dispute. The Labour Court extenso referred to the material on record and rightly concluded that there was no delay in raising the dispute. I find no reason to interfere with the said finding about delay and laches.

¶64

Next, let me consider the merits of the case. Suffice it to note that the workman came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct i.e., misappropriation and was visited with an order of punishment i.e., dismissed from service. It is pivotal to note that one Mr.C.Gopinath was the Superior Officer. He had a significant role in the alleged misappropriation. Though Mr.C.Gopinath had a key role in the alleged misconduct, he was imposed with an order of minor punishment i.e., penalty of reducing the rank and time scale of pay to the lowest cadre of the Manager and 75% of the misappropriated amount was ordered to be recovered from him. However, Mr.Ganganna was imposed with a major penalty i.e., dismissed from service and 25% of the misappropriated amount was ordered to be recovered from him. The imposition of the penalty reflects that there is discrimination and

¶65

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:49913 WP No. 6069 of 2024 C/W WP No. 13598 of 2023

¶66

victimization. Hence, the Labour Court is justified in setting aside the order of dismissal.

¶67

Lastly, let me answer the contention regarding the award of the back wages by the Labor Court. The Labour Court extenso referred to the material on record and by exercising discretionary power granted backwages and directed the Corporation to pay 25% of the back wages. There cannot be a straight jacket formula for awarding relief of back wages. The relevant considerations will be taken note of. Furthermore, it would be a motion addressed to the discretion of the Labour Court or a Tribunal. Full back wages are the normal rule and

¶68

the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. The Labour Court or the Tribunal will exercise its discretion keeping given all the relevant circumstances. However, the discretion must be exercised judicially and judiciously.

¶69

To conclude, I should observe that this Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion unless the Award passed by the Labor

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:49913 WP No. 6069 of 2024 C/W WP No. 13598 of 2023

¶71

¶72

Court is perverse and is not at all supported by any evidence on record. In the present case, there is no legal error that would warrant interference by this Court. The law is well settled that

¶73

the judicial review is limited. The award of the Labour Court is just and proper. The Writ Petitions are devoid of merits, and they are liable to be rejected .

¶74

9. Resultantly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed.

¶75

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶76

MRP

¶77

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Ganganna v. the Karnataka State Small Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ganganna v. the Karnataka State Small Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Bazaarvoice Technology India Private Limited Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii

M/S Sri Nuthatch Nutricare Technology Private Limited Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II

G M Indushekar Vs the State of Karnataka

The Management of Biovet Pvt. Ltd. Vs Anand S.V.

M/S Adarsh Developers Vs the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Smt. Gowramma Vs Sri. Shivanna