The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking certain reliefs against the order dated 22.09.2016 passed by the first respondent - the Labour Commissioner, giving sanction for prosecution. The Labour Court directed to reinstate the second respondent in the 'post' held by him as of 17.05.2008 and never directed to reinstate the second respondent at the same place where he was working in Wilson Garden as on the date of dismissal.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner is a private limited company having its factory at Bommasandra. The second respondent - Y. Muniraju was appointed by letter dated 29.04.1998 as Helper at Bengaluru. The second respondent started working in the Bommasandra Unit from April 1998 to 17.02.2004 when he was transferred to the office located at Wilson Garden. He was transferred from the Bommasandra Unit to the office located at Wilson Garden, Bengaluru with effect from 17.02.2004 by a letter dated 18.02.2004. It is said that he was a habitual and chronic unauthorized absentee to duty while working at the Wilson Garden office. An inquiry was held, in which he was found guilty. Hence, he was dismissed from service on 17.05.2008 on proven misconduct.
The second respondent challenged the dismissal order before the Addl. Labour Court. After adjudication, the Labour Court concluded that the misconduct of chronic unauthorized absence was proved, but held that the punishment of dismissal from service was excessive. Therefore, the second respondent was reinstated to the same old post. The second respondent insisted that he should be provided employment in the Bommasandra branch, Bengaluru. After a lapse of almost two years, the second respondent filed a Complaint before the Labour Commissioner, stating that the Management had not implemented the Award passed by the Labour Court.
The Labour Court accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner on the ground that the Management had failed to implement the Award of the Labour Court.
The Court noted that the Labour Court in the Award directed reinstatement of the second respondent into service to the same old post which he was holding as of 17.05.2008. It is pivotal to note that the second respondent was working as a Helper in the Wilson Garden office on the date of dismissal i.e., on 17.05.2008. The Wilson Garden Office was closed from 15.04.2011. Hence, he was transferred to a branch office in Mangalore where there was a vacancy.
The Court observed that there is a difference between the words, 'post' and 'place'. The Labour Court directed to reinstate the second respondent in the 'post' held by him as of 17.05.2008 and never directed to reinstate the second respondent at the same place where he was working in Wilson Garden as on the date of dismissal. The conclusion of the first respondent Labour Commissioner that the second respondent should have been reinstated in service at Bommasandra Unit is totally misconceived, because the second respondent was not working in Bommasandra Unit as on the date of dismissal i.e., 17.05.2008, but he was working at Wilson Garden Office consequent to transfer.
Furthermore, the Court said that as long as the legality of the transfer order is not challenged, the same is binding on the second respondent and as such, the question of concluding that the petitioner has not implemented the award of the Labour Court does not arise.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, allowing the petition, held that the order dated 22.09.2016 giving permission to prosecute the petitioner is liable to be quashed.
Case Title: Essae-Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. The Labour Commissioner & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Jyoti Mulimani
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO.53274 OF 2016 (L-TER)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. S. N. Murthy
Advocate for the Respondents: Ms. Rashmi Patel
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
