The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking certain reliefs. The Court observed that the Presiding Officer ought to have framed the issue during the pendency of the dispute and not at the time of passing of the award.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was selected and appointed as a Product Advisor in Grade 6 with effect from 08.07.2011. By considering his good performance, the Company revised the petitioner's CTC from 12.03.2012. Taking note of the sales performance achieved by the petitioner, he was issued with a letter of appreciation on 13.04.2015. The petitioner submitted letters dated 03.12.2015 and 28.12.2015 against the illegal order of termination passed by the respondent Company. The petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute by filing a Claim Petition before the Labour Court. The respondent filed an application requesting the Labour Court to reject the Claim Petition contending that the petitioner does not satisfy the definition of workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Labour Court while passing the award, framed an additional issue and held that the petitioner is not a workman under the I.D Act and hence the claim petition is not maintainable and rejected the dispute vide award dated 17.07.2018. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Labour Court has erred in adjudicating the dispute without giving an opportunity for the parties to lead evidence on the additional issue. He argued by saying that the Labour Court framed the additional Issue at the time of passing of the award and the same is evident from Paragraph No.7 of the award. He drew the attention of the Court to the award of the Labour Court.
The Court noted that the additional issue is not framed during the pendency of the dispute. The Presiding Officer has framed this issue at the time of passing of the award.
The Court observed that the issues and additional issues must be framed at the time of adjudication of the dispute and not at the time of passing of the award. Hence, framing of additional issues at the time of the passing of the award is unsustainable. Hence, the parties are deprived of leading evidence on the additional issue. It is pivotal to note that the Presiding Officer ought to have framed the issue during the pendency of the dispute and not at the time of passing of the award. Hence, the findings recorded by the Labour Court and the award are unsustainable in law.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, allowing the petition, held that the findings recorded by the Labour Court and the award are liable to be set aside.
Case Title: Deviprasad K. K. v The Management of M/S Novartis
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Jyoti Mulimani
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO.52786 OF 2018 (L-TER)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Naik V. S.
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. G. Nataraj
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
