Karnataka Bank Limited Vs Smt. Premalatha

KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED, NEAR MAHAVEERA CIRCLE, KANKANADY, HEAD OFFICE: MANGALORE-575002, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, HR AND IR SHRI.MANJUNATHA BHAT.B.K.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

SMT. PREMALATHA, W/O LATE SRI. GANGADHARAA M, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶19

SMT. PRIYALATHA, D/O LATE SRI. GANGADHARAA M, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶20

SMT. SUMALATHA, D/O LATE SRI. GANGADHARAA M, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶21

SMT. SWARNALATHA D/O LATE SRI. GANGADHARAA M, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶22

2 -

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:18677 WP No. 47054 of 2016 C/W WP No. 50633 of 2015

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

ALL ARE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED SRI.M.GANGADHARAA, RESIDING AT NO.3-11-911/1, SARASWATHI COMPOUND, SANVI BIKARNAKATTA, KULASHEKHARA MANGALORE - 575005, DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SMT SHEELA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DTD.24.12.2012 IN CR.NO.120/1999 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE AT ANNEX-H.

¶29

IN WP NO. 50633/2015:

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

SRI M GANGADHARA, SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY LRS,

¶32

PREMALATHA, W/O LATE GANGADHARAA. M, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶33

PRIYALATHA, D/O LATE GANGADHARAA.M, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶34

SUMALATHA, D/O LATE GANGADHARAA.M, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶35

SWARNALATHA, D/O LATE GANGADHARAA.M AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶36

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.3-11-911/1, SARASWATHI COMPOUND, SANVI BIKARANA KATTA

¶37

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18677 WP No. 47054 of 2016 C/W WP No. 50633 of 2015

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

KULASHKHARA, MANGALORE-575005, DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶40

...PETITIONERS

¶41

(BY SMT. SHEELA KRISHNA.,ADVOCATE)

¶42

AND:

¶43

THE CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED, HEAD OFFICE, MANGALORE-575003.

¶44

THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER/ REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICER, KARNATAKA BANK, MANGALORE - 575003.

¶45

...RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶47

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 15.7.2014 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN FR 13/2014 MARKED AS ANNXB.

¶48

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶49

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶50

4 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:18677 WP No. 47054 of 2016 C/W WP No. 50633 of 2015

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

ORAL ORDER

¶54

Writ Petition No.50633/2015 is by the legal representatives of deceased M.Gangadhara. Writ Petition No.47054/2016 is by the Karnataka Bank Limited (for short 'Bank') against the legal representatives of deceased M.Gangadhara.

¶55

Both petitions arise from the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court (for short 'CGIT') in proceedings CR No.120/1999. In terms of the said award, CGIT held that there exists relationship of master and servant between the Bank and M.Gangadhara.

¶56

After having held that there exists relationship of master and servant, further relief is not granted to M.Gangadhara who raised an industrial dispute. Subsequent to the award M.Gangadhara died and his legal representatives are before this Court assailing the award which declined to grant any further consequential relief subsequent to the finding that there exists master and servant relationship between the Bank and M.Gangadhara.

¶57

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18677 WP No. 47054 of 2016 C/W WP No. 50633 of 2015

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

The Bank has filed W.P.No.47054/2016 challenging the award, being aggrieved by the finding that there exists master and servant relationship between the Bank and M.Gangadhara.

¶60

For the sake of convenience, the petitioners in W.P. No.50633/2015 namely the legal representatives of deceased M.Gangadhara are referred to as petitioners and respondent - Bank in W.P.No.50633/2015 is referred to as the respondent.

¶61

M.Gangadhara claims that he was employed as a driver by the respondent and has served as driver from 04.01.1990 till 19.08.1998 and on 19.08.1998, his services were terminated without there being any enquiry. Aggrieved by the alleged termination, M.Gangadhara raised an industrial dispute. Central Government referred the dispute for adjudication. The point for reference reads as under:

¶62

"Whether Sri. M Gangadhara, Driver whose services were utilized by the Assistant General Manager/ Regional Manager of Karnataka Bank Limited, Regional Office, Mangalore, was a workman under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and there exists master and servant

¶63

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18677 WP No. 47054 of 2016 C/W WP No. 50633 of 2015

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

relationship between the Karnataka Bank Ltd. And Sri.M.Gangadhara?"

¶66

Respondent-Bank disputed the status of

¶67

M.Gangadhara as its employee and took a stand that certain officers of the Bank were allowed to avail the services of the driver whenever they travelled outside the headquarters and the said officers were paid allowances of the drivers for availing the services of the driver. Respondent- Bank took a stand that M.Gangadhara was never employed by the Bank and there existed no relationship of master and servant between respondent-Bank and M.Gangadhara.

¶68

The parties led evidence before the CGIT. M.Gangadhara examined himself as WW.1 and on behalf of the Bank, Manager is examined as MW.1. M.Gangadhara has produced 8 documents in support of his claim. Bank has produced 5 documents in support of its claim.

¶69

The CGIT has held that M.Gangadhara's claim is established and passed the award which is under challenge by both the parties.

¶70

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18677 WP No. 47054 of 2016 C/W WP No. 50633 of 2015

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners referring to the award would contend that after having held that there exists relationship of master and servant between the Bank and M.Gangadhara, the Tribunal could not have passed the award without conferring the financial benefit flowing from the said relationship. It is urged that as on the date of the award, M.Gangadhara was alive and there should have been an order for regularization and payment of the consequential benefits flowing from the relationship.

¶73

It is further submitted that M.Gangadhara died post award and there is no question of reinstatement. However, the legal representatives of deceased M.Gangadhara are entitled to all consequential financial benefits payable to M.Gangadhara flowing from the relationship of master and servant between the Bank and M.Gangadhara.

¶74

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Bank opposing the petition filed by the legal representatives of deceased M.Gangadhara and also justifying the stand taken in the petition filed by the Bank, would submit that the finding that there exists master and servant relationship between Bank

¶75

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18677 WP No. 47054 of 2016 C/W WP No. 50633 of 2015

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

and M.Gangadhara is without any basis and without any evidence.

¶78

Learned counsel submits that one of the daughters of M.Gangadhara is working in the respondent- Bank after the demise of M.Gangadhara. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the said statement.

¶79

The CGIT has relied on two entries in Ex.W.6 the ledger maintained by the Bank and based on two entries it has held that there exists relationship of master and servant between the Bank and M.Gangadhara. It is submitted that there is no appointment order issued in favour of M.Gangadhara and also no order of termination is issued. M.Gangadhara's services as a driver was availed by the Regional Manager on few occasions and on those occasions, Bank has reimbursed the Regional Manager for expenses incurred in availing services of M.Gangadhara and this payment made to the Regional Manager cannot be construed as a evidence to establish the relationship of master and servant between the Bank and M.Gangadhara.

¶80

It is further submitted that when Bank celebrated

¶81

Silver Jubilee, as a special gesture Rs.150/- is paid to

¶82

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:18677 WP No. 47054 of 2016 C/W WP No. 50633 of 2015

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

M.Gangadhara and said special gesture cannot be construed as a piece of evidence establishing the relationship of master and servant.

¶85

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by way of reply would submit that the Bank has not produced records to substantiate the contention that the Managers were given allowance to hire the drivers. It is established that the Bank owned the car and this fact would itself establish that M.Gangadhara was a driver appointed by the Bank as no other persons were shown to be the driver of the Bank to drive the official car.

¶86

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

¶87

On going through the impugned award, it is noticed that the CGIT has concluded that M.Gangadhara was the employee of the respondent - Bank by referring to the allowance paid to the officers who were not willing or not able to drive the vehicle. The CGIT has also noticed that the allowance has increased from Rs.500/- per month to Rs.1,500/per month and later Rs.2,000/- per month. The CGIT has also

¶88

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:18677 WP No. 47054 of 2016 C/W WP No. 50633 of 2015

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

looked into the entries made in ledger at Ex.W.6 and has concluded that the relationship of master and servant is established. The entries found in Ex.W.6 are extracted by Tribunal are as under :

¶91

"To Car Maintenance allowance RN for particular month."

¶92

"The amount paid to Gangadhar Driver in connection the with Platinum Jubilee for 5 days as a Special Case."

¶93

The CGIT has also noticed that in the said ledger from 03.05.1990 to 23.05.1998, some 60 entries were made

¶94

for having paid bata to the driver for his overnight stay outside Mangalore.

¶95

This Court has perused Ex.W6 the ledger maintained by the Bank. The entries in the ledger do not indicate consistent monthly payment by the Bank to M.Gangadhara. The payment made to Regional Manager towards car maintenance allowance cannot be construed as salary paid by the Bank to the driver. At the most, it is the allowance paid to the Manager who is permitted to avail the

¶96

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:18677 WP No. 47054 of 2016 C/W WP No. 50633 of 2015

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

services of the driver. This is not sufficient to establish the relationship of employer and employee or master and servant between the Bank and M.Gangadhara.

¶99

Though the learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that unless M.Gangadhara happened to be the driver of the Bank, there was no need for the Bank to pay special allowance on the occasion of the Silver Jubilee celebrated by the Bank, this Court is unable to accept the said contention. Merely because a payment Rs.150/- is made on the occasion of Silver Jubilee celebration of the Bank, one cannot conclude that such payment is made recognizing the status of M.Gangadhara as driver of the Bank.

¶100

It is relevant to note that there is no appointment letter or termination order issued to M.Gangadhara. More importantly, the documents produced by the Bank or the documents produced by M.Gangadhara do not reveal that he has been paid monthly salary or he has been paid salary on daily basis. Stray entries here and there for having paid the amount to Regional Manager towards car allowance and one entry relating to payment made of Rs.150/- to M.Gangadhara

¶101

12 -

¶102

NC: 2025:KHC:18677 WP No. 47054 of 2016 C/W WP No. 50633 of 2015

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

are not sufficient to establish the relationship of the employer and employee or master and servant.

¶105

This Court is of the view that the finding recorded

¶106

by the CGIT is not based on the acceptable evidence and said finding is without any credible or acceptable evidence and certainly calls for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

¶107

Hence, the following:

¶108

ORDER

¶109

(i) Writ Petition No.47054/2016 is allowed .

¶110

(ii) The impugned award dated 24.12.2012 in proceedings CR No.120/1999 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore is set - aside.

¶111

(iii) Writ Petition No.50633/2015 is dismissed .

¶112

Sd/-

¶113

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶114

GVP

¶115

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Smt. Premalatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Smt. Premalatha

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

Ramachandra D Vs M/S Hardcore Securitys Services

Sri. Ramesh, Vs Assistant Labour Commissioner and Authority

Nagaraj v S/O Janappa Vs R Mamamtha

M/S Recaero India Private Limited Vs Recaero India Pvt. Limited Workers Union

Central Board of Trustees Vs M/S Vikram Hospital Heart Centre

Sri T Muralidhara Vs the State of Karnataka