The Divisional Controller Vs Dawalsabs/O… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

The Divisional Controller Vs Dawalsabs/O… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner/employer directed to deposit the amount payable to the workman before the Labour Court within two months.

Issue for consideration

Whether an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is maintainable to claim benefits under a reinstatement award when back wages were denied. +2 more

Court's answer

An application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is maintainable to claim benefits under an award that directs reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits even though back wages were denied; the contention that such an application is not maintainable is liable to be rejected.

Ratio / Principle

This Court finds no error in the Labour Court's award of ₹14,744/- towards contributions to Provident Fund, D.R.E.F and P.T.; the contention that the employer did not produce salary records was rejected on the premise that the employer is the custodian of the documents.

Key takeaways

No ground is made out to interfere with the Labour Court award in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; consequently the writ petition is dismissed.ratio¶¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Industrial Law — Section 33(C)(2), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Maintainability of execution application — Award of reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits though back wages denied — Workman's application under Section 33(C)(2) held maintainable; denial of back wages alone does not render it incompetent — Computation of dues — Where employer, the custodian of salary records, fails to produce them, Labour Court justified in awarding sums beyond employer's admitted liability; award of ₹14,744/- over admitted liability of ₹1,02,756/- towards Provident Fund, D.R.E.F and P.T. contributions upheld — No scope for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution — Writ petition by N.W.K.R.T.C. dismissed; employer directed to deposit the amount before the Labour Court within two months (Single Judge: Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.).

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15499 WP No. 67041 of 2012

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO. 67041 OF 2012 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N.W.K.R.T.C. BAGALKOT DIVISION, BAGALKOT, R/BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI. … PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. DAWALSAB S/O. DONGRISAB GHODESAVAR, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. TIPPU NAGAR, 2^ND CROSS, BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

… RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED)

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.20 12:45:43 +0530

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING THE AWARD MADE IN APPLICATION NO.47/2011 DATED 19/12/2011 AWARD OF LABOUR COURT, BIJAPUR (ANNEXURE-A) AND CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE LABOUR COURT, BIJAPUR PERTAINING TO THE APPLICATION NO.47/2011, AWARD DATED 19/12/2011.

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

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15499 WP No. 67041 of 2012

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner assailing the order marked as Annexure-A dated 19.12.2011 passed in Application No.47/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bijapur.

Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that the respondent was removed from employment. Pursuant to a disciplinary enquiry, the said order of dismissal was challenged by raising an industrial dispute in KID No.23/2009. The said application filed by the workman was allowed. The penalty of dismissal from service was set aside, and the petitioner/employer was directed to reinstate the respondent/workman into employment without any back wages.

Thereafter, the respondent/workman filed an application under Section 33(C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947¹ , claiming the benefits under the award. The respondent/workman claimed an amount of ₹2,19,546/.

1 For short, ‘Act of 1947’

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15499 WP No. 67041 of 2012

HC-KAR

The employer/petitioner filed objection and urged that the respondent/workman was entitled to only ₹1,02,756/-.

After the enquiry, the Court held that the respondent/workman was entitled to ₹1,17,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till entire recovery of the amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the application under Section 33(C)(2) is not maintainable, as back wages were denied.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also submit that the calculation made by the respondent/workman is not supported by any material, and the award of ₹14,744/-, which is in excess of admitted liability of ₹1,02,756/-, ought to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondent, though served with notice, is not represented.

The Court has considered the contentions raised in the Bar and perused the records.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15499 WP No. 67041 of 2012

HC-KAR

The contention that the application under Section 33(C) (2) is not maintainable is liable to be rejected. The award, in addition to directing re-instatement, has also directed continuity of service and consequential benefits payable to the workman. What has been denied is only the back wages.

The workman is entitled to the consequential benefits and continuity of service. This being the position, the workman was justified in filing an application under Section 33(C) (2) of Act of 1947.

Before the Labour court, the respondent admitted the liability to the extent of ₹1,02,756/-. The dispute was in respect of excess above amount of ₹1,02,756/-. The petitioner made a claim for ₹2,19,546/-. The Labour Court has noticed that the petitioner/employer has not produced the records relating to the salary paid to the workman. The contention that the petitioner has not produced the records relating to respondent’s salary, is rejected on the premise that the employer is the custodian of the documents.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15499 WP No. 67041 of 2012

HC-KAR

This Court does not find any error in the order passed by the Labour Court, wherein it has awarded ₹14,744/- towards the contribution towards Provident Fund, D.R.E.F and P.T.

No ground is made out to interfere with the order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

With these observations, the writ petition is

dismissed .

The amount payable to the workman shall be deposited before the Labour Court within two months from today.

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 10