Dismissed

Yellappa S/O. Tippanna Karigar, v. the Management of

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2024WP/66508/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Workman challenged Labour Court award rejecting his claim of premature retirement based on disputed date of birth, which had granted only Rs.50,000 compensation. Citing admissions in PF/ESI records and belated production of the school certificate, High Court upheld the award and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Yellappa S/O. Tippanna Karigar, Vs the… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12837 WP No. 66508 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.66508 OF 2011 (L-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI YELLAPPA S/O. TIPPANNA KARIGAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: NEAR WATER TANK, H.NO: 2238, MARUTI NAGAR, DANDELI.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR S.BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE MANAGEMENT OF WEST COAST PAPER MILLS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BANGUR NAGAR, DANDELI.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶16

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO ANNEXURE-E FROM THE LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WRIT OR ORDER OF DIRECTION TO QUASH THE AWARD PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI, IN K.I.D. NO.21/2010 DATED 22/03/2011, WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION THE RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER INTO SERVICE, WITH FULL BACK WAGES AND OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12837 WP No. 66508 of 2011

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Challenging award dated 22.03.2011 passed by Addl. Labour Court, Hubballi in KID no.21/2010 at Annexure-E (Labour Court for short), this petition is filed.

¶23

Sri Shivakumar S.Badawadagi, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was appointed as casual worker in 1975, but confirmed in 1977. It was submitted, at time of appointment, his date of birth was entered as 1951 in Provident Fund Declaration Form, whereas in ESI Declaration Form, it was entered as 1953. But as per School Leaving Certificate issued by Government Higher Primary School, DFC, Dandeli, date of birth was 01.06.1955. However, petitioner was illegally and prematurely retired from service on 31.12.2009. As it was without considering his date of birth in School Leaving Certificate, he raised dispute by filing claim under Section 10(4-A) of Industrial Disputes Act (for short, ‘ID Act’) in KID no.21/2010.

¶24

In said proceedings, respondent entered appearance and filed objections. Thereafter, Labour Court

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12837 WP No. 66508 of 2011

¶26

framed issues and recorded evidence. Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and got marked Transfer Certificates as Exhibits W1 and 2. Respondent examined one witness as MW1 and got marked Personnel file of petitioner as Ex.M1.

¶27

On consideration, Labour Court answered Issue no.1 in Affirmative, dismissed claim petition insofar as prayer for reinstatement, backwages etc., but awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Not satisfied with same, petitioner had filed this petition.

¶28

It was submitted, when petitioner had produced cumulative records from school, which was infact, Government School, ignoring Transfer Certificate issued by said school and instead relying on bare entries without any basis, was ex facie illegal. Reasons assigned by Labour Court were untenable and sought for allowing writ petition.

¶29

On other hand, Sri Ravi Hegde, learned counsel for respondent opposed writ petition. He submitted that at time of appointment of petitioner, he had not furnished proper documents insofar as date of birth. However, in year

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12837 WP No. 66508 of 2011

¶31

1983, respondent had issued a memo dated 28.12.1983 calling upon petitioner to furnish any document regarding proof of age/date of birth. When petitioner failed to respond, Personnel Department of respondent informed petitioner by letter dated 07.03.1984 that petitioner’s date of birth would be taken as 01.01.1952. Petitioner having acquiesced to same, and continued to work, could not be permitted to make out grievance when he was retired from service on 31.12.2009. Issuance of memo and letter as above was admitted by petitioner in cross-examination. On proper appreciation, Labour Court had rejected claim, but granted compensation.

¶32

It was submitted, on 29.08.2011, entire amount in terms of award was paid to petitioner. Therefore, there was no scope for interference.

¶33

Heard learned counsel and perused petition

¶34

records.

¶35

In this petition, petitioner is challenging award passed by Labour Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court in oft

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12837 WP No. 66508 of 2011

¶38

quoted decision in case of State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh reported in AIR 1977 SC 1512 has held Labour Court would be final Court for appreciation of facts and an interference with findings by High Court would not be justified unless findings are without any basis or contrary to material on record.

¶39

Perusal of Annexure-C-deposition of petitioner before Labour Court reveals admission insofar as entry of date of birth in PF and ESI Declaration Forms as 1951 and 1953 respectively. Petitioner has also admitted about issuance of memo dated 28.12.1983 for production of proof of age or date of birth. When confronted with Personnel file, he admits his signature thereon. In said file, his date of birth is entered as 01.01.1952. Consequently, petitioner was retired from service on 31.12.2009 after completion of 58 years of age as per Certified Standing Orders.

¶40

As against said material, petitioner sought to rely on Ex.W1-Transfer Certificate. Said document was not produced before management until after retirement. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. v. Laxman,

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12837 WP No. 66508 of 2011

¶43

reported in (2020) 3 SCC 419, Courts have scorned belated challenge of date of birth entered in service records.

¶44