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 if a person is gainfully employed, the question of reinstatement does not arise.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of diesel generators. The respondent was appointed as Supervisor on probation on a salary of Rs.8,000/-. On 23.08.2012, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent as he was found gambling. He submitted a reply to the show cause notice stating that five workers were playing money betting and that he was not aware of the same as he was busy otherwise. Taking note of the reply, the petitioner issued a strict warning by letter. The petitioner extended the probationary period of the petitioner several times. When the petitioner company wanted to terminate the service of the respondent, the respondent requested for extension of the probationary period which was granted on humanitarian grounds.
On the expiry of the extension, the petitioner called upon the respondent to produce the NOCs from the concerned departments and collect his final dues. The respondent neither produced the NOC from the concerned departments nor came to the Company to collect his final dues. On the other hand, the petitioner received a letter dated 04.09.2015 from the respondent alleging that his services were terminated by refusing employment with effect from 31.08.2015.
The respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Court at Bengaluru and the same was registered. The Court passed the award on 31.08.2019 and directed the petitioner Company to reinstate the respondent into the original post with continuity of service and consequential benefits without any back wages. 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 respondent was appointed as a Supervisor and he was paid a monthly salary of more than Rs.10,000/-. In view of Section 2(S)(iv) of the I.D. Act, he cannot be considered as a workman. He contends that non-extension of the period of probation does not amount to termination or refusal of employment. Hence, the respondent could not have raised the dispute.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the respondent was appointed as a Supervisor, and he is a Workman as defined under the I.D. Act. He denied the contention regarding gainful employment. Learned Counsel vehemently contended that the Labor Court extenso referred to the material on record and justified in directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent into service. Therefore, he submits that the petition is devoid of merits and accordingly same may be dismissed.
The Court noted that the respondent was appointed as a "Supervisor". The terms and conditions of the appointment letter would also reveal that the appointment can be terminated during the probation period without giving any notice/reason or pay in lieu thereof, by either side. Further, the Court noted that the probationary period of the respondent was extended from time to time.
The Court observed that the respondent was appointed as a Supervisor but, he was paid a salary of more than Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month. Hence, in view of Section 2(S)(iv) of the I.D. Act, he cannot be considered as the workman. The Court said that if a person is gainfully employed, the question of reinstatement does not arise. The respondent was on probation period and his service was not confirmed. Hence, the question of reinstatement does not arise. The Labour Court has overlooked these aspects and has erroneously gone ahead and decided the dispute.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, allowing the petition, held that the Award passed by the First Additional District & Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside.
Case Title: M/S. Powerica Limited v Sri Manjunath Pattar
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Jyoti Mulimani
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO.13192 OF 2020 (L-TER)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Somashekar
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Adinarayana
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
