The Divisional Controller vs Sri.Laxman S/O Tukaram Koli
2022 Latest Caselaw 150 Kant

                                  1



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                           PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
                                 AND
       THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

           WRIT APPEAL NO.200191/2019 (L-PW)

BETWEEN:
The Divisional Controller,
NEKRTC, Vijayapura Division,
Vijayapura.
Rep. by its Chief Law Officer.
                                                       ... ...Appellant
(By Smt. Ratna N.Shivayogimath, Advocate)
AND:
Sri. Laxman S/o Tukaram Koli,
Aged about 69 years, Occ: Retd. Conductor,
R/o Horti, Tq: Indi,
Dist: Vijayapura-586 101.
                                                   ..... Respondent
(Respondent served on IA No.1/2020)
       This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, praying to set aside the order dated 11.03.2019
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.202243/2018 (L-
PW) and allow the writ petition filed by the appellant in toto. And
Pass such other orders as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court under
the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice
and equity.
      This appeal coming on for               orders      this   day,
K.S. Hemalekha J, delivered the following:
                                 2



                           JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka

High Court Act is filed by the Divisional Controller, NEKRTC,

Vijayapura Division (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'

for brevity), assailing the order passed by the Learned Single

Judge dated 11.03.2019 in W.P.No.202243/2018, dismissing

the petition.

2. The appellant herein filed the aforesaid writ

petition challenging the impugned order passed by the Prl.

Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Authority under the Payment

of Wages Act, 1936, Vijayapur, dated 13.12.2010 in

Crl.Misc.No.135/1997 and the order dated 16.01.2018 passed

by the IV Addl. District Judge, Vijayapura in M.A.No.7/2014.

3. That, one Laxman Tukaram Koli, who was in

services of KSRTC as a Conductor filed a petition in

Crl.Misc.No.135/1997 under Section 15(2) of the Payment of

Wages Act, 1936, seeking a direction for refund of the illegally

deducted amount to the extent of Rs.2,33,638/- with interest at

18%. In criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner

contended that having been appointed as a Conductor on

01.10.1975, was illegally dismissed from services on

29.08.1982. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the services, the

workman had approached the Labour Court, Hubli, seeking a

direction to reinstate with 100% back wages. The Labour

Court was pleased to reinstate the petitioner along with 100%

back wages. Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, the

Corporation filed W.P.No.12959/1989 and in the said petition,

the back wages to an extent of 50% was modified by order

dated 24.07.1997. It was further contended by the petitioner/

workman that the authority did not refund the excess amount.

As such, he filed a petition in Crl.Misc.No.135/1997, seeking

refund of the amount deducted to an extent of Rs.2,33,368/-

with interest at 18%.

4. Before the Prl. Chief Judicial Magistrate in

Crl.Misc.No.135/1997, the respondent-Corporation filed their

objections contending that the award passed by the Labour

Court cannot be instituted under Section 15(1) of the Payment

of Wages Act, 1936, but can only proceeded under Section

33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the

appropriate Labour Court and further contended that the

petition for Payment of Wages under Section 15(2) of the

Payment of Wages Act is not maintainable.

5. In order to prove his contention, the

petitioner/workman examined himself as PW.1 and got

marked Exs.P1 and P2 and respondent examined one witness

as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R7.

6. On hearing the arguments on both sides, the

learned Magistrate framed the following points for

consideration:

1. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent deducted the difference of wages of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,99,950/-?

2. Whether the petitioner further proves that he is entitled for the above said claim plus cost of Rs.1,000/- and interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of petition.

3. What order?

7. The Prl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayapur, on

hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the respondent, by its order dated 13.12.2010 was

pleased to hold that the petitioner is entitled to arrears of

wages to an extent of Rs.1,99,950/- with interest at 18% per

annum from the date of petition till realization.

8. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Prl. Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Vijayapur, the Corporation preferred an

appeal in M.A.No.7/2014 before the IV Additional District

Judge, Vijayapura after lapse of 1231 days. The learned

District Judge, after appreciation of the evidence and material

on record, held that the appeal filed by the Corporation is not

maintainable in view of non-compliance of Section 17(1-A) of

the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and also on the ground that

the appellant-Corporation has not shown any satisfactory and

sufficient grounds to condone the delay in preferring the

appeal and hence, dismissed the appeal.

9. Being aggrieved by both the orders passed by the

Prl. CJM Court, Vijayapur in Crl.Misc.No.135/1997 and the

learned IV Addl. District Judge in M.A.No.7/2014, the

Corporation has preferred the writ petition before the learned

Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, on re-appreciation

and considering the orders passed by the courts below was

pleased to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the

petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the

orders passed in Crl.Misc.No.135/1997, dated 13.12.2010 and

M.A.No.7/2014, dated 16.01.2018.

10. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the

learned Single Judge, the present appeal is filed by the

Corporation, assailing the correctness of the orders passed in

Crl.Misc. No.135/1997, M.A. No.7/2014 and W.P.

No.202243/2018.

11. Heard Smt. Ratna N. Shivayogimath, learned

counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record.

12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is

contrary to the materials on record and also contended that

the respondent is entitled only for basic pay and not for any

other allowances and contended that the petition filed under

Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act is not

maintainable.

13. It is not in dispute that the workman Sri. Laxman

S/o Tukaram Koli had raised a dispute before the Labour

Court against the dismissal of services and the Labour Court

was pleased to reinstate the petitioner with 100% back wages

and in W.P.No.12959/1989 filed by the Corporation

challenging the order of the Labour Court, the back wages to

an extent of 50% was modified. Seeking to refund the

deducted amount to an extent Rs.2,33,638/- with interest at

18%, the workman filed a petition under Section 15(2) of

Payment of Wages Act, 1936 on the ground that in spite of

petitioner being entitled to 50% of the back wages, the

Corporation withheld the minimum wages, which the

petitioner/workman is entitled to.

14. The facts reveal that the petitioner/workman was

in service from 1975 and is fighting for his payment of back

wages of 50% from the year 1989. He is running from pillar to

post by filing of petition in the year 1997 seeking for refund of

the illegally deducted amount and though there is an order in

the year 2010, the Corporation again preferred M.A.No.7/2014

on delay of 1231 days contending that the petition before the

Prl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayapur is not maintainable,

depriving the right of a workman, who has worked in the

institution since 1975. The said appeal was dismissed on the

ground of delay and latches. The Corporation preferred writ

petition and the learned Single Judge, on re-appreciation of

material and considering the contention urged by the learned

counsel for the petitioner/Corporation has dismissed the

petition, affirming the judgment and order passed in

Crl.Misc.No.135/1997 and M.A.No.7/2014. The limited

purpose of the Payment of Wages Act, in our opinion, is the

speedy and summary enforcement of the payment of wages

and whole of those wages when the right of such wages is

reasonably clear. Looking from all angles, the appeal filed by

the Corporation is unsustainable.

15. For the reasons stated supra, we are of the

considered view that the order passed by the learned Single

Judge does not call for any interference by this Court and the

present appeal filed by the appellant-Corporation is devoid of

merits and is liable to be dismissed.

16. Accordingly, we pass the following:

ORDER

i) The writ appeal is dismissed.

ii) The order dated 11.03.2019 passed in W.P.No.202243/2018 (L-PW) by the learned Single Judge is hereby affirmed.

iii) No order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE SMP