M/S. Veebros Freight Carriers vs Sri. N. S. Chaluvaraj
2022 Latest Caselaw 13072 Kant

                            -1-



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                         PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.PRASANNA B.VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

                           AND

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

        WRIT APPEAL NO.595 OF 2022 (L-TER)


BETWEEN:
M/S. VEEBROS FREIGHT CARRIERS
No.B /101, ARJUN CENTRE
231, GOWANDI STATION
GOWANDI, MUMBAI
REPRESENTED BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER
MR. SALIL NAIR
                                          ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.   SRI. N. S. CHALUVARAJ
     S/O LATE N.R. SRINIVASAN
     AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
     R/O No.1, 'SARATHY NILAYA'
     MOTAPPA LANE
     M.S. NAGAR (POST)
     OLD BYAPPANAHALLI
     BENGALURU - 560 033

2.   THE MANAGEMENT OF
     M/S OKAY LOGISTICS PVT., LTD
     No.6, 1ST B CROSS, LALBAGH ROAD
     SUDHAMANAGARA
     BENGALURU - 560 027
     (PRESENLTY SHIFTED TO NEW ADDRESS)
     M/S. OKAY LOGISTICS PVT. LTD
     No.116, BANDEPALYA
                             -2-



     KUDLU MAIN
     OFF HOSUR ROAD, 12TH KM
     OP: BENGALURU NURSERY
     KUDLUGATE, HOSPALYA
     (NEXT TO KSBCL WAREHOUSE)
                                            ... RESPONDENTS

                            ****

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, IN WP
NO.1374/2016 (L-TER) DATED 25/10/2021 AND FURTHER BE
PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                        JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length.

2. The appellant, who was respondent No.2 before the

learned Single Judge, has challenged the order dated

25.10.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.1374/2016 whereby,

the petition filed by the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein

was allowed. The award impugned in the writ petition

dated 28.09.2015 passed by the III Additional Labour

Court, Bengaluru was set aside by the learned Single Judge

and the termination letter dated nil issued by respondent

No.2/appellant to the petitioner was also quashed and the

respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner into

service and restore all consequential benefits in favour of

the petitioner within a stipulated period of six months from

the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed by the

Court.

3. The perusal of the order passed by the learned Single

Judge clearly shows that the order is passed on two

premises. Firstly, the learned Single Judge has recorded

that the counsel for the respondents remained continuously

absent and then, has allowed the petition on merits. The

learned Single Judge specifically observes that the order of

termination itself is wholly unsustainable on more than one

ground. The said order placed on record at Annexure-A

refers to one Mr.N.S.Chalavaraj. The termination order was

passed on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply

with the transfer order alleged to have been effected in his

favour.

4. The perusal of the order placed at Annexure-B shows

that the transfer order is addressed to one Mr.Selvaraj. In

a table shown in the said order, four names are mentioned

namely, Vijayakumar K.P, Sheeja, Damodaram, Selvaraj

and Ajithan. The learned counsel for the appellant made

an attempt to submit before this Court that the

communication at Annexure-A was addressed to

Mr.Chaluvaraj i.e. the petitioner before the learned Single

Judge. As the name Selvaraj appears in the

communication, the said order be treated as transfer order

effected on the petitioner. This submission cannot be

accepted in the four corners of law.

5. The communication is addressed to one Mr.Selvaraj.

The name of the petitioner/respondent No.1 is

N.S.Chaluvaraj. In the table seen at Annexure-B, the name

mentioned is Selvaraj. All these aspects are considered by

the learned Single Judge in the order dated 25.10.2022.

The learned Single Judge has also observed that the

learned counsel for the respondents not only remained

absent before this Court but, the counsel remained absent

in the proceeding before the Labour Court also and the

proceeding before the Labour Court was not contested. It

is also observed that the petitioner submitted clinching and

uncontroverted oral and documentary evidence before the

Labour Court coupled with the factual aspects and the

respondents utterly failed to rebut the claim of the

petitioner. The reference ought to have been allowed but,

erroneously the same was rejected by the Labour Court by

passing an award.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant also made an

attempt to submit before this Court that the absence of the

counsel before the learned Single Judge was for bona fide

reasons. Our attention was invited to the ground raised in

the appeal in paragraph 11 of the appeal memo. The

perusal of this paragraph reveals that necessary facts are

missing. There is no mention of the date when the counsel

engaged by the respondents expired, when the appellant

gained the knowledge of the proceeding and the steps

taken thereafter. The contentions urged in paragraph 11

are totally vague. The appellant herein has not produced

the alleged order of transfer of the petitioner and without

producing the said order, the termination subsequently

effected was not sustainable.

7. Considering all these aspects, in our opinion, the

appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

8. In view of dismissal of the appeal, no orders are

required to be passed on the pending interlocutory

applications. The pending interlocutory applications, as

such, are disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

AHB