Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller Nekrtc vs Ramanna on 25 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5335
WP No. 203074 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT PETITION NO. 203074 OF 2023 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NEKRTC DIVISION -I,
KALABURAGI,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RAMANNA S/O SHIVASHARANAPPA
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: NIL (EX CONDUCTOR 2713, DEPOT NO. 2,
Digitally signed by KALABURAGI),
KHAJAAMEEN L
MALAGHAN R/O FARTHABAD VILLAGE,
Location: HIGH TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585102.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K RAVINDRA AND
SRI REVANARADHYA C. HIREMATH, ADVOCATES)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 27-07-2023 IN
APPLICATION NO. 02/2023, VIDE ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY
THE DISTRICT JUDGE AND PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR
COURT, KALABURAGI. B) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS OR
DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS JUST AND
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5335
WP No. 203074 of 2023
PROPER UNDER THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question the correctness of the impugned judgment passed by the Labour Court in Application No.2/2023.
2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for following relief:
i) Set aside the impugned award dated 27-07-2023 in Application No.02/2023, vide Annexure-B passed by the District Judge and Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kalaburagi.
ii) Pass such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper under the fact and circumstances of the case and allow this writ petition.-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5335 WP No. 203074 of 2023
3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent- employee was serving as Conductor in the petitioner- Corporation. According to the pleadings before the Labour Court he was appointed during the year 1994 and regularized during the year 1998. During 2010 due to personal reasons he took voluntary retirement from service (for short, 'VRS'). He moved an application before the Corporation. His application for VRS was approved and he was permitted to retire vide order dated DEO No.442/2010 dated 21.11.2010 with effect from 28.10.2010.
4. The petitioner-Corporation issued a Circular, which is produced at Annexure-A. According to which a person who takes VRS would be given additional benefit based on his previous service prior to VRS or remaining period of service after VRS. Calculations were given in Circular No.1335 dated 12.08.2005.
5. The petitioner has said to be paid the said additional benefit as per Circular No.1335 and minimum -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5335 WP No. 203074 of 2023 amount of Rs.75,000/- was paid at the time of retirement, which was not in dispute before the Labour Court.
6. After lapse of about 12 years, respondent- employee filed application under Section 33(c)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act (for short, 'I.D.Act') praying to pass an order directing the Corporation to pay the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with consequential benefits and interest.
7. Before the Labour Court the Corporation had filed objections and both the parties have recorded the evidence.
8. The Labour Court considering the Circular No.1335 dated 12.08.2005 calculated the additional benefit to be paid under the said Circular, taking into consideration second part of the said Circular on the premise that as per the KSRTC regulations, which are beneficial to the employees has to be considered. Accordingly, calculated the amount for which respondent- employee was entitled i.e. for Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5335 WP No. 203074 of 2023 under the said Circular and the petitioner-Corporation had already paid Rs.75,000/-. Therefore, directed to pay remaining amount of Rs.1,25,000/- by the impugned award dated 27.07.2023. The correctness of the said order is challenged in the present writ petition.
9. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation and there is no representation on behalf of respondent-employee.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner- Corporation would submit that the said Circular No.1335 has got two portions, which was extracted by the Labour Court in the impugned order relevant portion of same is reproduced hereunder.
"An amount of calculation one month's pay Or 45 days pay (Basic + DA) for each year (fully year) of remaining service."
11. According to the petitioner-Corporation, workman had served the Corporation from 1994-2010 i.e. -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5335 WP No. 203074 of 2023 around 16 years. He further submits that as per his instructions remaining period of service left over at the time of permitting the respondent for VRS was 7 years. As per the said Circular, the amount whichever is less has to be paid. The petitioner-Corporation calculating the same on the basis of the left over the service of 7 years, paid Rs.75,000/-. Hence, there is no liability on the petitioner- Corporation to pay the arrears.
12. These facts are not bourn out from the impugned order. If we look into Annexure-A of the impugned order no records were produced by the Corporation to disclose the date of his appointment, date of birth, date of retirement, his pay, etc. Therefore, the Tribunal on the basis of oral evidence given by both the parties considered that left over service of the respondent herein was 16 years and considering the second part of the Circular No.1335, which was beneficial to the respondent herein and calculated the amount payable to the respondent-employee.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5335 WP No. 203074 of 2023
13. Since nothing was placed on record before the Tribunal, helplessly has passed orders on the basis of the facts deposed by the MW.1, it has accepted particulars given by him and calculated amount payable to the respondent-employee. In the absence of materials, this Court also cannot hold that the Labour Court has committed an error in calculation of the amount payable to respondent-employee.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner- Corporation vehemently contends that under Section 33(c)(2) of the I.D.Act, is meant for recovering of the determined amount between the employer and employee, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to determine the same. In respect of the said submission, he relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. Kankuben (Dead) By Lrs. And others1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the outstanding amount is to be calculated then the 1 92006) 9 SCC 292 -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5335 WP No. 203074 of 2023 Labour Court has no jurisdiction to assess and calculate the same. The said provision could be used only to recover the money due from the employer.
15. The facts of this case is different. In that case even the amount to be given to labour for doing overtime work had to be calculated. In the present case there is no much calculation required had the Corporation or the workman submitted the materials it could be easily considered and calculated as mentioned in Circular No.1335. Therefore, considering the facts of this case petition was maintainable before the Labour Court.
16. The petitioner-Corporation relied on the case of M/s Bombay Chemical Industries vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner & Anr.2, the facts of this case are totally different. In this case workman was demanding for payment of arrears of additional benefit for opting VRS which ought to be calculated as per Circular 1335. 2 Civil Appeal No.813 of 2022 DD 04.02.2022 -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5335 WP No. 203074 of 2023 However in the case of Bombay Chemical Industries (supra) and there was serious dispute between the workman and employer, regarding relationship of employer and employee. Inspite of such dispute, the Labour Court proceeded with deciding outstanding wages. Looking into the same the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the said Labour Court has no jurisdiction. Due to non- availability of the required materials, the Labour Court considered the claim of the employee/workman on the basis of the oral evidence of witness of the Corporation. Therefore, principle of law laid down in the said judgment in no way assist the petitioner-Corporation to buttress its arguments.
17. The Labour Court while calculating the amount held that as per regulation of the KSRTC Regulation which is beneficial to workman has to be applied. However, the said regulation is not quoted in the impugned judgment and the learned counsel for the Corporation submits that there is no such regulation.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5335 WP No. 203074 of 2023
18. The Industrial Disputes Act is enacted for the benefit of workman. Most of the provisions of the said Act is pertaining to the benefit of the workman. It is not clear regarding the regulations referred by the Labour Court for considering the beneficial scheme to the employee. There are no materials to hold that the said finding is erroneous. Hence not disturbed.
19. The Labour Court appreciating the oral evidence available before it and also considering the Circular, passed the impugned order. Under the writ proceedings, this Court cannot sit as appellate court and re-appreciate the evidence and give the findings. The required materials were not available before the Labour Court. The Corporation could have produced service record of the respondent-employee to disclose the date of birth of employee/workman, his date of appointment in the Corporation, amount of salary paid and date of accepting VRS, etc., The entire judgment of the Labour Court was on the basis of the oral evidence led by both the parties,
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5335 WP No. 203074 of 2023 wherein it is stated in the impugned order that respondent-employee admitted the left over period of service of petitioner was around 16 years. On the basis of same, calculations were made.
20. I do not find any grounds to interfere in the findings of the Labour Court. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is dismissed.
ii) Whatever amount deposited by the petitioner-Corporation, if any, is directed to be transmitted to the concerned Court.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 15 CT:PK