Smt Lakshmi Shridhar Vs M/S Athens Reality (India) Pvt. Ltd.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER/AWARD PASSED BY IIND LABOUR COURT IN I.D.NO.70/2014 DTD18.12.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.DIRECT TO THE SECOND PARTY/R-2 TO REINSTATEMENT THE APPELLANT/FIRST PARTY WORKMAN IN

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1264 WP No. 9730 of 2019

¶20

HER ORIGINAL POST, WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS LIKE FULL BACK WAGES, CONTINUITY OF SERVICE ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶24

The present petition is filed challenging the award dated 18.12.2018 in I.D. No.70/2014 on the file of II Additional Labour Court at Bangalore. In terms of the said order, the claim made by the petitioner is allowed in part. The order of termination dated 12.03.2014 passed by 1^st respondent is set-aside. 1^st respondent is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner as a lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The Labour Court has also directed interest at 18% per annum on the said amount from the date of publication of the award till

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1264 WP No. 9730 of 2019

¶26

payment. The claim against 2^nd respondent is rejected by the Labour Court.

¶27

Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner is before this Court. The respondents have not questioned the said order.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was earlier employed under respondent No.2 in the year 2004, and on 31.05.2013, the petitioner resigned from the job under respondent No.2 and joined employment under respondent No.1.

¶29

Later, a dispute is raised on the premise that the petitioner was not allowed to work under 1^st respondent with effect from 12.03.2014. The petitioner sought a direction against respondent No.1 for reinstatement. The relief is not sought against 2^nd respondent and the relief is sought against 1^st respondent.

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1264 WP No. 9730 of 2019

¶31

Both the respondents contested the matter.

¶32

The Labour Court on appreciation of evidence led by both parties has concluded that the order of termination is illegal. However, the reinstatement is not ordered and Rs.50,000/- is awarded as compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

¶33

Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that once the order of termination is set-aside, the Labour Court ought to have passed the order of reinstatement and without any reasons, the order of reinstatement is refused and in lieu, a meagre compensation of Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid along with interest at 18% per annum. Thus, the learned counsel would contend that there has to be an order of reinstatement in favour of the petitioner.

¶34

Learned counsel would rely on the judgment of

¶35

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tapash Kumar Paul vs. BSNL & Another¹ , Surendra Kumar Verma

¶36

1 (2014) 4 S.C.R. 875

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1264 WP No. 9730 of 2019

¶38

Etc. vs The Central Government Industrial Tribunal² , Santosh Gupta vs. State Bank of Patiala³ , and the judgment of the High Court of Madras in the case of The Commissioner Thiruvallur Minicipality, Tiruvallur vs. K. Sampath and Another⁴ . Referring to the aforementioned judgments, he would contend that requirement of Section 25F, 25FF & 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not been complied by the petitioner.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for first respondent would contend that the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was not allowed to work is incorrect and on the date of appearance before the Labour Court, a memo is filed by first petitioner wherein, the first petitioner has put it in writing stating that he has no objection for the petitioner to join the work. However, the petitioner has

¶40

2 AIR 1981 SC 422

¶41

3 AIR 1980 SC 1219

¶42

4 WP No.11949/2006

¶43

6 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:1264 WP No. 9730 of 2019

¶45

refused to join the work and the contention that the petitioner was not allowed to work is not established.

¶46

Learned counsel for first respondent would further contend that the petitioner has not completed 240 days employment under first respondent as such, the petitioner cannot raise an industrial dispute. It is also his contention that the petitioner is not terminated from the service, as such, the dispute could not have been raised under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and when the petitioner was offered employment the petitioner did not avail the opportunity of joining the employment. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, is the submission.

¶47

In support of his contention, the learned counsel would rely upon the judgment of the full Bench of this Court in the case of H.S. Rangaramu vs. The Management of Karnataka State Road Transport

¶48

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1264 WP No. 9730 of 2019

¶49

Corporation, Mysore and Others⁵ ,. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to the judgment in the case

¶50

of Sundaram Textiles Limited vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tirunelveli and Others⁶ .

¶51

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

¶52

Admittedly, the petitioner has not produced the order of termination. The records would also indicate that the petitioner worked only for five months in first respondent establishment. Thereafter, the dispute was raised on the premise that the petitioner was not allowed to join the work because first respondent has refused the employment.

¶53

It is relevant to note that on 17.11.2014, the first respondent has filed a memo before the Labour Court stating that he has no objection for the petitioner to

¶54

5 ILR 2002 KAR 2768

¶55

6 MANU/TN/6339/2022

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1264 WP No. 9730 of 2019

¶57

resume the work with first respondent. Despite such a memo being filed, the petitioner has not chosen to work with first respondent. On the contrary, the petitioner has filed objection to the memo on 23.03.2015. Even in the said memo, the petitioner has not expressed her willingness to join the work under first respondent.

¶58

In the cross examination, it is elicited from the petitioner that she has not expressed her intention to join the work with first respondent subsequent to the memo dated 17.11.2014. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the ratio laid down in the Sundaram Textiles Limited vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court

¶59

supra, squarely applies to the case on hand. In the said case, in para No.17 of the judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has noted as under:-

¶60

"In the case before hand, the 3^rd respondent was offered employment offer after passing the award, though at a different place, he should not have refused to join on the condition that only after the award is implemented in full, he would join. He should have

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1264 WP No. 9730 of 2019

¶62

joined at the place of posting on re-employment and then agitated his further claim in the manner known to law. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the third respondent is not entitled for reinstatement and other benefits after refusal of offer of employment through letter dated 25.07.2012."

¶63

In the instant case, as already noticed the offer for re-employment is made even before the award.

¶64

As far as the judgments cited by the learned

¶65

counsel for the petitioner is concerned, suffice it to say that facts obtained in the said judgments are entirely different.

¶66

In the case of Tapash Kumar Paul, supra the

¶67

Court held that the order for payment of compensatin in lieu of re-instatement is to be supported by justifiable reasons. In the case of Surendra Kumar Verma, supra the Apex Court has held that reinstatement with backwages is to be ordered in case the employee has worked for 240 days in a calendar month in continuous

¶68

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:1264 WP No. 9730 of 2019

¶69

service, for the purpose of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the case of Santosh Gupta, supra, the Apex Court under Section 25F of Act of the Industrial Disputes Act has awarded reinstatement and backwages. However, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out situation where the employee was offered reemployment and employee refused to join the service in the aforementioned judgments. Hence, the ratio in the cases cited does not apply.

¶70

It is further relevant to note that the petitioner did not complete 240 days of continuous service under respondent No.1 in one calendar year.

¶71

For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of reinstatement.

¶72

It is also relevant to note that the first respondent company is not in existence. In terms of the order passed by the Registrar of Companies wherein the

¶73

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:1264 WP No. 9730 of 2019

¶74

name of the companies struck off with effect from 2018 as noticed from Ex.M4.

¶75

However, what is required to be noticed is the Labour Court has awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/along with interest @ 18% per annum. Though the said order could not have been passed, first respondent has accepted the said order and has not questioned the same. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum as ordered by the Labour Court.

¶76

Hence, the petition is dismissed.

¶77

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶78

CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64

Smt Lakshmi Shridhar v. M/S Athens Reality (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lakshmi Shridhar v. M/S Athens Reality (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Senior Divisional Controller Vs Sri Siddalingappa Jyothi

Sri Vasudev Nandlal Jaisingh Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom)

Chief Manager Vs Govindappa

Sri Rajachar Vs the General Manager (Operation)

Air Force School Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

M/S Shree Renuka Sugars Limited Vs State of Karnataka