Sri Suresh vs Lic Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 10023 Kant

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                       PRESENT

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

                           AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

           WRIT PETITION No.3431/2020(L-RES)
                          C/W
          WRIT PETITION NO.12358/2021 (L-RES)

W.P.No.3431/2020

BETWEEN

SRI SURESH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
SON OF LATE SRI SATTAIAH
R/A NO. 1682, CH-12/1A
10TH CROSS,
ASHOKPURAM
MYSURU - 570 008
                                         ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NAIK V S, ADVOCATE)

AND

1      LIC OF INDIA
       SOUTH CENTRAL OFFICE
       'JEEVAN BHAGYA'
       SAIFABAD
       HYDERABAD
       BY ITS ZONAL MANAGER

2      THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL
       MANAGER
                            2




       LIC OF INDIA
       DIVISIONAL OFFICE
       MYSURU-BENGALURU ROAD
       BANNIMANTAPA
       MYSURU -570 015.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYENDRA D. JOSHI, ADVOCATE)


      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU
PERTAINING TO ANNEXURE-G AND QUASH THE AWARD DATED
31.1.2019   PASSED   BY   THE   CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU, IN
C.R.NO.45 OF 2012 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS
PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-G TO THE EXTENT THE
PETITIONER IS AGGRIEVED AND ETC.,


IN W.P.NO.12358/2021

BETWEEN:

1.   LIC OF INDIA
     SOUTH CENTRAL ZONAL OFFICE
     'JEEVAN BHAGYA'
     SAIFABAD
     HYDERABAD-500063
     REPT. BY SECRETARY (LEGAL CEL),
     BENGALURU.

2.   THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
     LIC OF INDIA
     DIVISIONAL OFFICE
     MYSORE-BENGALURU ROAD
     BANNIMANTAP
     MYSORE

     BOTH REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
     (LEGAL CELL)
     ZO UNIT, HAYES ROAD
                               3




      BENGALURU - 560 025.
                                           ...PETITIONERS
      (By SRI VIJAYENDRA D. JOSHI, ADVOCATE)

AND

SRI SURESH
SON OF LATE SRI SATTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/A NO. 1682, CH-12/1A
10TH CROSS,
ASHOKPURAM
MYSURU - 570 008
                                          ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.S.NAIK, ADVOCATE)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
ANNEXURE-E AWARD DATED 31.10.2019 IN CR.NO.45/2012,
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT CUM
LABOUR COURT AT BENGALURU AND ETC.,

     THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, POONACHA, J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

Writ Petition No.3431/2020 is filed by the workman

and Writ Petition No.12358/2021 is filed by the employer

challenging the Award dated 31.10.2019 passed by the

Central Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bengaluru

(hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal" for short) in

CR.No.45/2012.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

It is the case of the workman that he was working

with the Employer since 1999 as Attendant-cum-

Caretaker/Sepoy. Though he had worked continuously,

the employer illegally refused employment w.e.f.,

18.8.2009. Being aggrieved by the action of the employer,

the workman had approached various authorities by

making oral and written representations from time to time,

which were not considered.

3. Pursuant to the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, as a one time measure the

employer was required to recruit eligible temporary Class

IV employees working with the employer for more than 5

years and who had possessed minimum qualification at the

relevant point of time after calling for applications and

interviewing the successful candidates. Accordingly, the

Management issued a Notification dated 20.5.2011 calling

for applications from eligible candidates. The workman

sought to apply, however since he did not meet the

qualification criteria, his application was not accepted.

Thereafter, at the instance of the workman, upon failure of

conciliation, the Central Government referred the dispute

to the Tribunal for adjudication.

4. The employer appeared before the Tribunal

and filed its statement of objections and countered the

claim of the workman. Apart from denying the claim of

the workman that he was appointed as a sub-staff, it was

also contended that aggrieved by the refusal by the

employer to receive his application pursuant to Notification

dated 20.5.2011, the workman had approached this Court

in W.P.No.19040-41/2011, which Writ Petition was

dismissed. It was contended that having regard to the

dismissal of the said Writ Petition, it is not open to the

workman to once again agitate his grievance afresh. The

evidence of the parties was also recorded. Thereafter, the

Tribunal by its Award dated 31.10.2019 directed the

employer to pay a compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the

workman in lieu of his entitlement as retrenchment

compensation. Being aggrieved by the said Award dated

31.10.2019, the workman and the employer have filed the

present Writ Petitions respectively.

5. The learned counsel for the workman although

raised various grounds assailing the Award of the Tribunal,

submitted that the workman would be satisfied if the

Award of the Tribunal be modified in view of the judgment

passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal

No.7213/2010 dated 31.8.2020 in the case of Incharge

Officer and another v. Shankar Shetty, as also the

judgment dated 21.8.2008 of the Division Bench of this

Court passed in W.A.No.569/2008 in the case of

K.M.Somashekaraiah v. Executive Engineer and

others.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the employer

sought to assail the findings given by the Tribunal and

contended that the claim of the workman ought to have

been rejected in toto.

7. We have considered the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material on record.

8. Having regard to the rival contentions put forth

by the learned Counsel for the parties, the question that

arises for consideration is, "Whether the Award dated

31.10.2019 passed in CR.No.45/2012 by the Tribunal is

liable to be interfered with?"

9. The Tribunal, after appreciation of the factual

matrix noticed that the workman had worked continuously

till his removal on 18.8.2009. That having served

continuously as a daily wager from 1999 till 2009, the

workman falls under Section 2(S) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ID Act'

for short). Having noticed the said aspect of the matter, in

order to mould the relief, after noticing the judgments of

the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, the Tribunal

recorded a finding that the monetary compensation in lieu

of the services rendered as a daily wager would be the

appropriate relief. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a

monetary compensation of Rs.75,000/- as retrenchment

compensation.

10. The finding recorded by the Tribunal holding

that the monetary compensation is liable to be granted in

lieu of the services rendered as a daily wager is just and

proper and the said finding does not call for any

interference and is accordingly, upheld.

11. With regard to the aspect of awarding of

compensation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Shankar Shetty (supra), ordered a compensation of

Rs.1.00 lakh in lieu of reinstatement as the appropriate,

just and equitable relief. The Division Bench of this Court

in the case of K.M.Somashekaraiah (supra) also awarded

a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh as compensation in lieu of

reinstatement. Hence, following the aforesaid two

judgments, we are also of the considered opinion that the

compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh be granted to the workman

as compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

12. Accordingly, the Award passed by the Tribunal

stands modified only to the extent as stated above and in

all other respects, the Award is affirmed.

The Writ Petitions are accordingly, disposed of.

No costs.

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of in view of the

disposal of the Writ Petitions.

sd/-

JUDGE

sd/-

JUDGE

nd