R v Mohan Reddy Vs the Chairman

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I. CALL FOR RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING OF THE AWARDED IN ID NO. 6/2014 BY THE CGIT CUM LABOUR COURT AND II. ISSUE ORDER, DIRECTION OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASH ORDER ANNEXURE - F DATED 28.04.2020 MADE IN ID 6/2014 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AND ALLOW THE ID NO. 6/2014 AS PRAYED FOR WITH

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5858-DB WP No. 1944 of 2022

¶18

CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING ARREARS OF SALARY WITH 12 PERCENT INTEREST AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶23

Petitioner, a workman is grieving before the Writ

¶24

Court against dismissal of his I.D.No.6/2014 vide order dated 18.04.2020 handed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues

¶26

that the impugned order is bereft of any elements of justice apart from running counter to the cannons of labour jurisprudence and therefore is liable to be voided. He tells us that the power of Writ Court is co-extensive with powers of the Tribunal whose proceedings are called in question and therefore whatever the said Tribunal ought to have made, this court has to do under Article 227 of the

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5858-DB WP No. 1944 of 2022

¶28

Constitution of India. He has drawn our attention to the averments in the Claim statement in the subject ID in support of his contention and also the pages of TCR.

¶29

Learned Sr.Panel Counsel appearing for the bank vehemently opposes the petition contending that petitioner was only a daily wager whose services were engaged as Peon whenever needed; he worked during the period from 04.06.1993 and 16.04.2013, but not on regular basis; he never worked as a messenger at all. However, the Management having stood tall entered into a Settlement dated 21.11.2016 whereunder he had been reinstated in service with no benefit of backwages. This Settlement binds the workmen who are members of the union and therefore order of the CGIT cannot be faltered. He vehemently opposes the claim of petitioner for backwages and for continuity of service. So contending he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers along with TCR, we are

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:5858-DB WP No. 1944 of 2022

¶33

inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as

¶34

under and for the following reasons:

¶35

4.1 The petitioner was engaged as a workman i.e., peon during the period between 04.06.1993 and 16.04.2013 and that he was prevented from continuing in service w.e.f. 17.04.2013, whatever be the reason for that is demonstrated by a wealth of evidentiary material on record. A person who has put in about two decades of continuous service, cannot be fired that way without violating the cannons of labour jurisprudence which provides security of tenure to the working class. Petitioner’s ID No.6/2014 had raised the grievance of his termination from service and had sought for reinstatement along with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and backwages. That was stoutly resisted by the Management by banking upon the Settlement in question. The CGIT was swayed away by the submission of Management and denied relief to the petitioner. This it could not have done because a part of the Settlement specifically provides for petitioner prosecuting ID No.6/2014 on merits, notwithstanding his reinstatement. This aspect of the matter has not been addressed by the CGIT and therefore there is error apparent on the face of its order.

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5858-DB WP No. 1944 of 2022

¶37

4.2 It has been a long settled position of law that where a wrongfully terminated workman is reinstated by the order of the Court/Tribunal or by settlement, ordinarily the backwages, in whatever quantum, should follow, of course coupled with continuity of service. Denying backwages will be prejudicial to the interest of workman since terminal benefits depend upon the length of continuous service. Therefore by a stroke of pen the previous service cannot be erased from record, as rightly submitted by learned counsel appearing for the workman.

¶38

4.3 Learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent-bank is right in telling us that in matters like this, award of backwages cannot be followed as a thumb rule, a host of factors entering the fray including the gainful employment of the workman and his potential employment during the termination. Some evidence has to be led by both the sides in this regard, although earlier the burden to prove gainful employment was solely on the shoulders of Management. Be that as it may, justice of the case warrants that a reasonable portion of backwages need to be paid. Regard being had to all facts & circumstances of the case, we fix it at the rate of 60% of the wages then, payable to the petitioner plus 12% interest thereon from the date of termination.

¶39

6 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:5858-DB WP No. 1944 of 2022

¶41

4.4 The vehement submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-bank has granted regularization of service to hundreds of workmen who are on par with the petitioner herein and therefore same relief should be granted by this court, is difficult to countenance. Learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the Management is right in pointing out that in that connection a legal battle is being fought on the floor of CGIT in ID No.CR 22/2013 between the Union and the Management and therefore we cannot derail the same since the claim of many other workmen is also involved. After all, we notice from the Claim Statement of the workman that there is no prayer for regularization, though there was no bar for seeking the same at the hands of CGIT. This is an added reason for denying the said relief.

¶42

In the above circumstances, we make the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

[i] This petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order of the CGIT, Bangalore and in its stead we direct the Management to treat the petitioner as a Peon functioning w.e.f. 04.06.1993 and to count his entire service for all practical purposes.

¶45

[ii] Petitioner shall be paid 60% of backwages to be computed at the rate of wages which he would have been

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:5858-DB WP No. 1944 of 2022

¶48

paid, had he not been terminated, of course with all admissible allowances. The backwage period shall be from 17.04.2013 and 23.11.2016.

¶49

[iii] The Management shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above backwages with effect from the date they periodically fell due. This payment to be made within a period of six weeks and delay, if brooked, the rate of interest becomes 18% in the place of 12%.

¶50

[iv] Nothing herein above observed shall influence the trial & decision making in the pending ID on the file of CGIT and that all contentions of the parties in that connection are kept open.

¶51

[v] The Management shall pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner, forthwith, for avoidably engaging in this long drawn legal battle.

¶52

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶53

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶54

Snb/

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

R v. Mohan Reddy v the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R v. Mohan Reddy v the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Novo Nordisk India Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. P Harshavardhana Reddy Vs the Assistant Director of Income Tax

Smt Saroja Vs State of Karnataka

The Income Tax Officer Vs Mr. Sanath Kumar Murali

Addl Commissioner for Income Tax Vs Lsi India Research and Development Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Tejraj Gulecha Vs the State of Karnataka