Karnataka High Court
North West Karnataka Road, ... vs Raghav Ganapati Naik on 3 January, 2023
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
-1-
WP NO.67397 OF 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.67397 OF 2010 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
1. NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
GOKUL ROAD,
HUBLI
REP BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUNITHA P KALASOOR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAGHAV GANAPATI NAIK,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC:NIL,
AT and PO:BANKANAL,
TQ:SIRSI,
DIST:UTTARA KANNADA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTORARI AGAINST ORDER REF.
NO.8/2007 PASSED BY LABOUR COURT, HUBLI
DATED:06/02/2010 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A; GRANT
INTERIM ORDER, STAYING THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER
PASSED IN REF.NO.8/2007 DATED:06/02/2010 PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-A, UNTIL THE DISPOSAL OF THIS WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
WP NO.67397 OF 2010
ORDER
Though the matter is listed for Orders, with the consent
the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties,
the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. In this Writ petition the petitioner has challenged the
award dated 06th February, 2010 in Reference No.8 of 2007 on
the file of the Additional Labour Court, Hubli, allowing the
reference in part.
3. The facts in nutshell are that, the respondent/workman
claims to be a job trainee-conductor in the petitioner-
Corporation appointed during 1997 and the respondent-
workman was removed from service on 30th March, 2001 on
the ground of misconduct. Departmental Enquiry was initiated
against the respondent herein and thereafter, the petitioner-
Corporation considered the findings of the enquiry report and
accordingly, removed the respondent from service. Thereafter,
the matter was referred under Section 10(1)(C) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Government by order
dated 29th January, 2007 and the Labour Court, by order dated
06th February, 2010 allowed the reference in part, holding that
WP NO.67397 OF 2010
removal of the respondent-workman from service is bad and
accordingly, directed the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the
respondent-workman into service with pay as it was on the
date of removal. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner-Corporation has presented this Writ petition.
4. Heard Smt. Sunitha P. Kalasoor, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Hegde, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-workman.
5. Smt. Sunitha P. Kalasoor, Learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner raised the following contentions:
1) the Labour Court has not properly considered the
jurisdictional issue in the matter, as the respondent
herein is not the workman under Industrial Disputes Act;
2) The respondent was appointed as job trainee conductor
and his probation has not been accepted even after two
years of his appointment and therefore, the said aspect
has not been considered by the Labour Court.
3) The learned counsel invited the attention of the Court to
issue No.1 and submits that the answer made by the
WP NO.67397 OF 2010
Labour Court in the affirmative would indicate that there
is no flaw in the Departmental Enquiry initiated against
the respondent-workman and in that view of the matter,
the Labour Court ought to have confirmed the order of
removal dated 30th March, 2001 by the petitioner-
Corporation.
6. In support of her submissions, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner-Corporation places reliance on the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
SANTOSH K. MENASINAKAI v. NEKRTC, BELLARY made in Writ
Appeal No.100369 of 2014 decided on 18th August, 2014 and
accordingly, sought for allowing the petition.
7. Per contra, Sri Ravi Hegde, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent-workman submitted that though this Court
by order dated 22nd September, 2021 accepted the petition by
directing the petitioner-Corporation to pay 17-B wages under
the Industrial Disputes Act during the pendency of the petition,
but same was not adhered to by the petitioner-Corporation and
accordingly, he submitted that since 17-B wages under the ID
Act was not paid by the petitioner-Corporation, the Writ petition
WP NO.67397 OF 2010
deserves to be dismissed at threshold. He also invited the
attention of the Court to the finding recorded by the Labour
Court and argued that the arguments advanced by the
petitioner-Corporation before this Court have not been raised
before the Labour Court and therefore, same cannot be
accepted under Article 226 of Constitution of India and
accordingly, seek for dismissal of the petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and on careful examination of the pleading before the
Labour Court, the same would indicate that the petitioner-
Corporation has stated before the Labour Court that the
respondent-workman was appointed as a Job Trainee
Conductor and probation of the respondent-workman is yet to
be considered. Having taken note of the judgment passed by
the Division Bench of this Court referred to above, in identical
case it is stated that the trainee conductor of the petitioner-
Corporation cannot be considered as Corporation servant and
therefore not a workman under the provisions of Industrial
Disputes Act. In that view of the matter, I find force in the
submission made by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the Labour Court has not considered
WP NO.67397 OF 2010
jurisdictional aspect and has not framed issue though
contention has been raised by the petitioner-Corporation in its
statement of objection. In that view of the matter, the award
dated 06th February, 2010 is liable to be set aside and matter is
required to be reconsidered the Labour Court afresh. In the
result, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. Award dated 06th February, 2010 made in
Reference No.8 of 2007 on the file of Additional
Labour Court, Hubli, is set aside;
2. The matter is remanded to the Labour Court for
fresh consideration in accordance with law and to
pass orders after affording opportunity to the
parties;
3. It is also made clear that the Labour Court shall
consider the issue on merits, including the issue
relating to jurisdictional aspect;
4. Since the Reference is of the year 2007, so also,
parties are represented through their learned
WP NO.67397 OF 2010
counsel before this Court, parties are directed to
appear before the Labour Court on 30th
January, 2023, without waiting for notice from
the Labour Court.
5. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LNN
