Karnataka High Court
Ramesh S/O Revansiddappa Mullur vs B.V.V.Sanghs And Anr on 7 December, 2023
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9084
WP No. 205974 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.205974 OF 2014 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
RAMESH
S/O.REVANSIDDAPPA MULLUR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCC: EX.LAB ASSISTANT
R/AT HUNDEKAR STREET
BAGALKOT
DIST: BAGALKOT-587 101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. B.V.V.SANGH'S,
signed by P.M.NADAGOUDA MEMORIAL
SACHIN
DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL
Location:
HIGH COURT BAGALKOT, BY ITS PRINCIPAL
OF BAGALKOT-587 101
KARNATAKA
2. THE CHAIRMAN
B.V.V. SANGH'S BASAVESHWAR
VIDYA VARDHAK SANGH
CENTRAL OFFICE
BAGALKOT-587 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.B.HEBBALLI AND SRI S.H.MANUR, ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9084
WP No. 205974 of 2014
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2012 ON I.A.NO.3 VIDE
ANNEXURE-P, ORDER DATED 22.03.2014 ON I.A.NO.5 VIDE
ANNEXURE-R AND ORDER DATED 05.08.2014 VIDE
ANNEXURE-S PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, VIJAYAPURA IN
APPLICATION NO.27/2011 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel
for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner, who was working
as an Assistant Lab Technician with respondent No.1-College to
quash order dated 09.01.2012 vide Annexure-P, order dated
22.03.2014 vide Annexure-R and order dated 05.08.2014 vide
Annexure-S passed by the Labour Court, Vijayapura in
Application No.27/2011.
3. The petitioner was a claimant before the Labour Court,
who filed a claim petition challenging the order of his
termination dated 15.04.1997. He claims that he was working
as an Assistant Lab Technician since 08.03.1989. On the basis
of the petition filed by the petitioner challenging his
termination, the Labour Court in KID.No.26/1997 vide order
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9084
dated 22.12.1999 passed an award directing the respondents
to reinstate the petitioner into service with 30% backwages
from the date of claim with continuity of service and
consequential benefits, which is produced at Annexure-A to the
petition.
4. Aggrieved by the said award of the Labour Court, the
respondents approached this Court in WP.No.11981/2000.
During pendency of the writ petition, on 18.08.2000, the
petitioner-claimant was ordered to be reinstated under Section
17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'I.D.Act').
The said interim order also came to be challenged by
respondents in a writ appeal in WA.No.5602/2000, wherein the
Division Bench of this Court dismissed the same.
5. In the meanwhile, the writ petition filed by the
respondents came to be allowed and the termination of the
claimant came to be upheld. Aggrieved by the order of the
learned Single Judge of this Court, the petitioner-claimant
challenged the said order before this Court in
WA.No.2476/2001, which came to be allowed on 08.10.2004 by
this Court setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge
and confirming the order passed in favour of the petitioner-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9084
claimant for reinstatement along with 30% backwages and
consequential benefits. This order of the Division Bench came
to be challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Civil Appeal No.1317/2007 and the said appeal came
to be dismissed on 12.08.2010.
6. This being the state of affairs, the petitioner-claimant
filed a joining report to the respondents on 21.09.2010 and
joined the College as a Lab Technician. However, during
pendency of the writ petition filed by the respondents aggrieved
by the order of reinstatement, an order came to be passed
under Section 17B of the I.D.Act reinstating the petitioner and
the petitioner joined the College and worked in the College.
However, subsequent to the writ petition being allowed and
setting aside of the order of reinstatement, it is stated that the
petitioner-claimant was removed from the employment. It is
due to this reason, the petitioner filed a joining report on
21.09.2010.
7. It is stated that thereafter the respondents neither
paid the salary or took the petitioner back to work in
accordance to the order of reinstatement or paid arrears of
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9084
backwages as ordered initially by the Labour Court. The joining
report filed by the petitioner was kept pending and no action
was taken by the Management Committee of the respondent-
College and so also, the respondents did not reinstate the
petitioner, due to which, the petitioner got issued a legal notice
on 21.12.2010 vide Annexure-K to the respondent-College to
act as per the order passed by the Labour Court for
reinstatement and for payment of backwages. Despite the legal
notice and the order of reinstatement in favour of the
petitioner, no action was taken by the respondent-College to
reinstate and not paid the backwages to the petitioner. This
perforced the petitioner to file an application under Section
33C(2) of the I.D.Act, which came to be numbered in
Application No.27/2011, wherein the petitioner claims wages in
a sum of Rs.11,09,913/- as per the award at 30% from the
date of dismissal till date of award and full wages w.e.f.
23.12.1999 till the filing of the application, which was legally
due to the petitioner on the basis of the award passed by the
Labour Court.
8. The respondents filed objections to the said application
filed under Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act. Thereafter, during the
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9084
pendency of the said application before the Labour Court, the
petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.III for summoning the
wage register from the respondents to establish and prove as
to what was the wages for further calculation and payment in
accordance to the order passed in KID.No.26/1997.
Subsequently, another application came to be filed in I.A.No.V
under Section 33C(3) of the I.D.Act, 1947 seeking appointment
of a Court Commissioner to verify records of the respondents in
order to arrive at a conclusion as to what would be the wages
that requires to be paid to the petitioner-claimant. The Labour
Court, however, rejected the said applications in I.A.Nos.III and
V filed by the petitioner by its order dated 09.01.2012 vide
Annexure-P and order dated 22.03.2014 vide Annexure-R
respectively. Thereafter, the Labour Court also passed an order
vide Annexure-S rejecting the main petition filed under Section
33C(2) of I.D.Act itself vide order dated 05.08.2014. It is
these orders of the Labour Court at Annexures-P, R and S,
which are challenged by the petitioner-claimant before this
Court.
9. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for
petitioner that the orders passed by the Labour Court are
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9084
illegal, perverse and arbitrary and same require to be set-aside.
He further contends that the petitioner-claimant has been
successful in the claim petition filed and the reinstatement
order passed by the Labour Court has been confirmed initially
and it was overturned, but in the writ appeal, the petitioner-
claimant was successful and the same was subsequently
challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same having
been dismissed, there is no dispute to the fact that the order of
the reinstatement passed by the Labour Court in KID
No.26/1997 dated 22.12.1999 stands as on today with regard
to the reinstatement of the petitioner-claimant and entitlement
for backwages of 30%.
9.1 It is the further contention of learned counsel for
petitioner-claimant that having succeeded before this Court in
the Division Bench in a writ appeal and in pursuance to the said
order of reinstatement, the petitioner moved an application
under Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act before the Labour Court
against the respondents to perform their part of obligation as
ordered by the Labour Court by reinstating the petitioner-
claimant into respondent No.1-College. During the pendency of
the writ petition preferred by the respondent-College,
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9084
admittedly, the petitioner-claimant was ordered to be taken
back to work as per Section 17B of the I.D.Act as an interim
measure and based on that order, the petitioner had joined
work and continued to work till the respondents having
succeeded in the writ petition. However, they did not thereafter
allow the petitioner to continue to work in the respondent-
College.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-College
contends that despite the order of reinstatement and the
petitioner being successful before the Division Bench of this
Court, he has not joined work in the respondent-College and
since he has not joined work, the question of making any
payment or wages to the petitioner would not arise. The Labour
Court is justified in dismissing the petition filed under Section
33C(2) of the I.D.Act and so also, the application in I.A.Nos.III
and V for collecting the wage register and appointment of
Commissioner for calculation and to verify the records of the
respondent-College to determine the wages of the petitioner.
11. Having heard learned counsel for both parties, it is
not in dispute that the petitioner was working in respondent-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9084
College as an Assistant Lab Technician by way of an
appointment order dated 08.03.1989 on a monthly salary of
Rs.450/-. Thereafter, on termination of the petitioner, the claim
petition having been filed by the petitioner came to be allowed
on 22.12.1999 in KID No.27/1997. Though this reinstatement
was challenged by the respondent-College before this Court
and was successful in setting aside the order, an appeal came
to be filed in WA.No.2476/2021, the petitioner-claimant was
successful and the reinstatement order passed by the Labour
Court came to be affirmed, which attained finality, even despite
the respondents approaching the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Therefore, it is a matter of record that the petitioner-claimant
has succeeded all through and the order of the Labour Court
has to be enforced. These are the undisputed facts.
12. In pursuance to the culmination of proceedings before
the Labour Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court and during the
pendency of the writ petition preferred by the respondent-
College, the petitioner was reinstated under Section 17B of
I.D.Act and worked for sometime, but thereafter, the
respondent on being successful in the writ petition did not
entertain the petitioner to work in the respondent-College as
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9084
the respondents have succeeded in the writ petition.
Thereafter, the petitioner has been left in lurch running from
pillar to post to make the order of reinstatement effective, but
of no avail and the petitioner was unsuccessful to get back to
work and claim any wages from the respondent-College. This
perforced the petitioner to file an application under Section
33C(2) of the I.D.Act and during the pendency of the same,
applications in I.A.Nos.III and V were filed to secure the wage
records from the respondent-College in order to claim and
prove the contents of the application made under Section
33C(2) of the I.D.Act and also for appointment of a
Commissioner to verify records of the respondent-College to
ascertain and to place on record as to what would be salary i.e.
required to be paid by the respondent-College respectively.
The Labour Court has not taken into consideration all these
aspects and has mechanically dismissed the applications filed in
I.A.Nos.III and V.
13. It is the duty of the respondent-College to make
payment of wages, in view of the order of reinstatement having
been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore,
nothing is left for the petitioner to further establish except the
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9084
fact that as to what is the salary that requires to be paid. The
petitioner during the pendency of the application under Section
33C(2) of the I.D.Act has filed a memo of calculation, which is
produced as Schedule-A along with the application filed under
Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act, which has described the details
of salary that requires to be paid by the respondent-College
from 15.04.1997 till the date of filing of the application i.e. till
31.01.2011. The petitioner has made his own calculation in the
Schedule-A, Parts 1 and 2 filed along with the application under
Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act before the Labour Court, which
requires to be considered by the Labour Court and pass suitable
orders. But having not done so, the Labour Court has rejected
I.A.No.III filed by the petitioner for summoning of wage
register and I.A.No.V filed by the petitioner seeking
appointment of Commissioner to verify the records of the
respondents under Section 33C(3) of the I.D.Act vide impugned
orders at Annexures-P and R respectively and consequently,
dismissed the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the
I.D.Act vide impugned order at Annexure-S.
14. I am afraid that this approach of the Labour Court is
not in consonance with law and the judgment passed by this
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9084
Court, wherein the petitioner is reinstated and the same is
upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and the challenge
made by the respondent-College is negatived. Therefore, there
is nothing left for the Labour Court to do except to make an
assessment as to what would be the salary that requires to be
made on the basis of either admission made or the documents
produced by either of the parties and come to an assessment to
make a calculation as to what is due to the petitioner to be
paid, which has not been considered by the Labour Court.
15. It is needless to mention that when an application is
filed under Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act, it is in the form of an
execution petition, wherein the Labour Court will have to
execute the order on the basis of reinstatement already
ordered by this Court for the reason that in the present case,
there is no dispute with regard to the petitioner being an
employee and having worked in the respondent-College and
that the adjudication has taken place and attained finality
affirming the reinstatement and backwages to be paid to the
petitioner. Hence, disputing the petitioner-claimant to be an
employee, is not the question either before this Court or before
the Labour Court.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9084
16. It is also contended by learned counsel for petitioner
that neither the petitioner has been terminated nor he has
retired from services and he would be due for retirement in the
next year i.e. 2024. Though learned counsel for respondent-
College has contended that the petitioner has not joined work,
he has not placed any material before the Court to show that
the petitioner was terminated or that he has been removed
from service. All these aspects cannot be gone into by this
Court at this time as it will have to be adjudicated before the
Labour Court in the application filed under Section 33C(2) of
the I.D.Act by filing proper applications on both sides or memo
of calculation or by producing relevant register and extract to
determine and prove what would be the salary to be paid,
whether the petitioner has worked or not and whether the
petitioner was removed from services or absent from services
and what action has been taken by the respondent-College in
this regard.
17. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed;
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9084
ii) The impugned orders passed by the Labour Court on
I.A.No.III dated 09.01.2012 vide Annexure-P, on
I.A.No.V dated 22.03.2014 vide Annexure-R are
hereby set aside and consequently, the order dated
05.08.2014 passed in Application No.27/2011 filed
under Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act, by the Labour
Court is also set aside.
iii) The Labour Court shall decide the application filed by
the petitioner in accordance with law by considering
the applications in I.A.Nos.III and V in a proper
perspective as contemplated under the I.D.Act and
taking into consideration the order of reinstatement
having become final and also the order passed by this
Court in WP.No.36070/1998 (Decided on 21.10.2003);
iv) Application No.27/2011 filed under Section 33C(2) of
the I.D.Act before the Labour Court, which was
pending earlier before the Labour Court at Bijapur,
shall be made over and transmitted to the Principal
District and Sessions Judge at Bagalakote, in view of
the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalakote
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9084
having been made a separate District by itself and the
Court having been formed therein;
v) The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalakote
shall decide the matter within a period of three
months, in view of the fact that the order of
reinstatement of the petitioner is made on
22.12.1999, despite which, the petitioner has not been
able to enjoy the fruits of the award;
vi) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion with regard to the merits of the application
filed under Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LB
