Dismissed

Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd., v. Krishna C. Naik

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2024WP/68847/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A government-owned construction corporation challenged a Labour Court award granting lumpsum compensation to a watchman for illegal retrenchment, contending it performed sovereign functions and was not an 'industry', and that 240 days' service was unproved. The High Court found the Labour Court's findings were supported by material on record and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12687 WP No. 68847 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.68847 OF 2010 (L-TER)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD., (FORMERLY KARNATAKA LAND ARMY CORPORATION LTD.), CHINNASWAMY STADIUM, GATE NO. 14, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

KRISHNA C. NAIK, AGED ABOUT: 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL, R/O: BELIKERE, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: KARWAR.

¶14

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

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD. (FORMERLY KARNATAKA LAND ARMY CORPORATION LTD.), KARWAR.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI H. R. GUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 12/06/2009, PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR, HUBBALLI, IN K.I.D. NO.13/1997, VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12687 WP No. 68847 of 2010

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Challenging order dated 12.06.2009, passed by

¶24

Additional Labour Court, Hubballi in KID no.13/1997, this petition is filed.

¶25

Sri Rajasekhar Burji, learned counsel for

¶26

petitioner submitted, petitioner is company wholly owned by Government of Karnataka and incorporated under provisions of Indian Companies Act, 2013.

¶27

It was submitted, petitioner is exclusively engaged in construction activity mainly in rural area on Government projects. As such, it was performing they are sovereign functions. It was submitted, respondent raised

¶28

dispute by alleging that he was appointed as watchman on 18.08.1991 on salary of Rs.600/- per month, which was later increased to Rs.1,300/- per month. It was submitted, respondent no.1 claims to have worked from August, 1991 till October, 1996 when on 1^st of October 1996, he was removed from service without any compensation or without holding enquiry. Alleging that such removal was illegal and respondent no.1 was entitled for reinstatement, he filed

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12687 WP No. 68847 of 2010

¶31

claim petition in KID no.13/1997 before Additional Labour Court, Hubballi.

¶32

Upon entering appearance, petitioner filed objections contending that respondent no.1 was not workman/employee and activity of petitioner would not fall within definition of industry’ under Industrial Disputes Act. Without proper consideration, under impugned order, Labour Court proceeded to hold that while working as watchman, services of respondent no.1 was illegally terminated. However, instead of ordering reinstatement, it had granted lumpsum compensation. It was submitted, while passing impugned order, Labour Court had failed to give any finding regarding activity of petitioner falling within definition of ‘Industry’. It had failed to take note of fact that petitioner engaged in carrying out work for Government/Government Agencies, which were sovereign functions and also about workman having worked for minimum period of 240 days in year preceding date of termination. On said grounds, sought for quashing of award.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12687 WP No. 68847 of 2010

¶35

On other hand, Sri H.R.Gundappa, learned counsel for respondent no.1 sought to oppose petition. It was submitted, fact that respondent no.1 was aged 30 years and had worked for more than 5 years was taken note of while determining lumpsum compensation. It was submitted, in similar circumstances, Courts had granted higher compensation.

¶36

In his pleadings as well as deposition, respondent no.1 has stated that he worked continuously from August, 1991 till October, 1996. It was submitted, assertion by petitioner that respondent had abandoned work voluntarily would amount to admission about employment and failure to substantiate abandonment would indicate illegal retrenchment. It was submitted, petitioner-corporation was involved in regular construction work and nothing of strategic or scientific importance. Therefore, would not fall within meaning of ‘sovereign functions’. On said ground, sought for dismissal.

¶37

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶38

record.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12687 WP No. 68847 of 2010

¶41

From above, it is seen that petitioner-corporation

¶42

is challenging award granting lumpsum compensation on ground that petitioner would not be an industry that performing sovereign functions and respondent no.1 failed to establish that he worked for more than 240 days. Perusal of impugned award reveals that Labour Court referred to a suggestion by petitioner during cross-examination of workman that he had received payment by signing on vouchers from September, 1995 to August, 1996. Since, same would cover a period of one year preceding date of termination, requirement of 240 days in one year prior to date of termination would stand satisfied. It also refers to activity of petitioner namely, to take up normal construction work and which would fall within definition of ‘Industry’. Same would also indicate that nature of work carried out by petitioner was not sovereign functions. On said finding, Labour Court has arrived at conclusion that respondent no.1 had established illegal retrenchment.

¶43

Thus, findings by Labour Court are with reference

¶44

to material on record and cannot be stated to be either

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12687 WP No. 68847 of 2010

¶47

without any basis or contrary to material on record. In that view of matter, no ground to interfere.

¶48

Writ petition stands dismissed.

¶49

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶50

VB,AV CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd., v. Krishna C. Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd., v. Krishna C. Naik

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

Smt. Husenbi W/O Dastageersab Mulla Vs Smt Shainazbegum W/O Mardansab Doctor

Mr Anwar Ibrahim Khan Vs Sri Shireen Iqbal Sayed W/O Iqbal Sayed

Sri Deepak S/O Veerabhadrappa Jambotkar Vs Smt Vidyashri W/O Deepak Jambotkar

Shri Nagesh S/O Hanamath Pujeri Vs the State of Karnataka

Ishwargouda S/O Martandagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravindar S/O Sharanappa Nagarale Vs the State of Karnataka