Dismissed

The General Manager, v. Imtiyaz Ahmed S/O. Abdul Ahmed Bellary

Karnataka HC27 Aug 2024WP/67480/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Railways sought quashing of a Labour Court award granting subsistence allowance to a terminated workman via Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act, questioning jurisdiction. The court found entitlement arose under IREM and dismissed the petition, directing deposit of the award amount within eight weeks while keeping the legal question open.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to deposit award amount (Rs.2,81,015/-) before Labour Court within eight weeks for payment to respondent.

The General Manager, Vs Imtiyaz Ahmed S/O… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12182 WP No. 67480 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.67480 OF 2011 (L-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE GENERAL MANAGER,

¶10

SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,

¶11

DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HUBBALLI – 580 020.

¶12

THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTH WESTER RAILWAY,

¶13

DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HUBBALLI – 580 020.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI AJAY U. PATIL & SRI SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATES)

¶16

AND:

¶17

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

¶18

SHRI IMTIYAZ AHMED S/O. ABDUL AHMED BELLARY, AGED ABOUT: 31 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: SHIVAKRUPA BUILDING, KULKARNI HAKKAL, HUBBALLI – 580 020.

¶19

(BY SRI RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18/08/2011 PASSED IN C.G. APPLICATION NO.7/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, AT HUBBALLI (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12182 WP No. 67480 of 2011

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:

¶27

(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the order dated 18/08/2011 passed in C.G. Application no.7/2010 on the file of the Court of the presiding officer Labour Court, Hubballi, at Hubballi (Produced vide Annexure-A).

¶28

(ii) Issue such other Writ, order or direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

¶29

Sri.Shivaraj S Ballolli, learned counsel for petitioners/Railway submits that challenge against impugned order is on question of law namely jurisdiction of Labour Court to entertain application under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘I.D. Act’), on an application filed by respondent/workman seeking for direction to pay subsistence allowance for period of suspension pending enquiry.

¶30

3. Though on first blush, petitioners’ contention

¶31

appears substantial, to a court query, whether petitioner was in fact paid any subsistence allowance, counsel on either side

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12182 WP No. 67480 of 2011

¶33

are unable to through light. Writ petition is of year 2011 i.e. nearly 13 years have lapsed. Petitioner also contend that respondent was not a regular employee governed by Service Rules of Railways namely Indian Railway Establishment Manual (for short ‘IREM’).

¶34

But perusal of Annexure-E, dated 18.08.2009 would indicate that respondent was terminated under provisions of Rule 1502 of IREM. Respondent has claimed subsistence allowance under IREM. If IREM contemplates payment of subsistence allowance, petitioners cannot escape said liability having subscribed to same for termination of service. Moreover, Labour Court has taken note of admission by M.W.1, Assistant Personnel Officer, who has stated that as per D and A Rules, subsistence allowance would be required to be paid for a period of six months as suspension was later revoked. In this regard, Labour Court held though Railways contended that suspension was revoked, they had failed to establish revocation. Labour Court thereafter has proceeded to quantify relief at Rs.2,81,015/-. Admittedly, there is no challenge on quantum.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12182 WP No. 67480 of 2011

¶37

5. Therefore, merely on ground that respondent had

¶38

invoked Section 33-C(2) of I.D. Act for claiming entitlement, that too in respect of subsistence allowance, which would be basic legal right of workman, this Court does not find fit to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.

¶39

Consequently, writ petition stands dismissed. Petitioners are directed to deposit award amount before Labour Court within a period of eight weeks.

¶40

Registry to transmit amount in deposit, if any to Labour Court for payment to respondent. It is clarified that question of law raised by petitioners is kept open and shall not be retreated as precedent.

¶41

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶42

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

The General Manager, v. Imtiyaz Ahmed S/O. Abdul Ahmed Bellary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Manager, v. Imtiyaz Ahmed S/O. Abdul Ahmed Bellary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. H Mallu Swami @ Mallikarjun H. Anantapur Vs Mr. Arun Kumar Agarwal

Smt. Manjula W/O Late Shashikant Bagi, Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri.Basavaraj.S.Patil Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Sharanabasayya Sudi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Laxamavva W/O Shivappa Madar Vs Shivappa Madar S/O Mahadevappa

Sri. Ravikiran S/O. Ningappa Kamble Vs Smt. Mahadevi W/O. Ningappa Kamble