Karnataka High Court
Chief Executive Officer vs S Krishnaiah on 2 January, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. No.6501 OF 2013 (L-RES)
C/W
W.A. No.6509 OF 2013 (L-RES)
IN W.A. No.6501 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT
MYSORE-570005.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADV.,)
AND:
1. S. KRISHNAIAH
S/O SHAKUNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS'.
1(a) SMT. BHAGYA
W/O LATE SRI.KRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
1(b) SRI. HARISH KUMAR
S/O LATE SRI.KRISHNAIAH
2
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.1002, BANNI STREET,
HUNSUR TOWN, HUNSUR TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105
(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER
DATED 06.12.2021)
2. GENERAL SECRETARY
MYSORE DIVISION WORKERS'
GENERAL ASSOCIATION
1404, RENUKACHARYA TEMPLE STREET
K R MOHALLA, MYSORE-570004.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. V.S. NAIK, ADV., FOR R1
V/O DTD:01.02.2016 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.12389/2009
DATED 08/10/2013.
IN W.A. No.6509 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. KRISHNAIAH
S/O SHAKUNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS'.
1(a) SMT. BHAGYA
W/O LATE SRI. S. KRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
1(b). SRI. HARISH KUMAR
S/O LATE SRI. S. KRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
3
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.1002
BANNI STREET
HUNSUR TOWN, HUNSUR TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. V.S. NAIK, ADV., FOR A1 (a & b))
AND:
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, MYSORE-570 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY MR. B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADV.,)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.12389/2009
DATED 8/10/2013.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
W.A.No.6501/2013 has been filed by the Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Mysore (hereinafter
referred to as 'the employer' for short), whereas,
W.A.No.6509/2013 was filed by employee being aggrieved
by the order dated 08.10.2013 passed in
W.P.No.12389/2009. On account of commonality of
issues, both the appeals are heard together and are being
decided by this common judgment.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals in
nutshell are that the deceased S.Krishnaiah (hereinafter
referred to as the employee for short) was employed on a
daily wage basis as a cook in boys College Hostel, Hunsur
for a period from 1990 to 1996. However, his services were
dispensed with in violation of Section 25(F) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. At the instance of the
employee, the dispute was referred for adjudication on
17.03.1998 to the labour court. The employee filed a
claim statement and examined himself. The employer
despite notice did not appear before the labour court. The
labour court by an award dated 28.02.2003 directed
reinstatement of the employee along with 50% backwages
from 02.05.1998. The aforesaid award passed by the
labour court was assailed by the employer in a writ
petition viz., W.P.No.13747/2007. A bench of this court
by an order dated 22.01.2008 remitted the matter to the
labour court. Thereafter, the employer adduced evidence.
The labour court by an award dated 05.09.2008 directed
the employer to reinstate the services of the employee
along with 50% backwages. The said award passed by the
labour court was again challenged in a writ petition
before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge
by an order dated 08.10.2013 modified the award and
directed the employer to pay a sum of Rs.1 Lakh to the
employee as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and
backwages within a period of two months along with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum till payment. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned
Single Judge, the employer has preferred
W.A.No.6501/2013, whereas, the employee has filed
W.A.No.6509/2013.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated
that there was no evidence that the employee had worked
continuously for a period of 240 days in a calendar year
and therefore, the question of violation of Section 25F of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 did not arise for
consideration. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent has pointed out that during the pendency of
this appeal, the workman has expired on 05.09.2020. It is
further submitted that the labour court had passed a well
reasoned award on the basis of meticulous appreciation of
the evidence on record and the same should not have been
interfered with by the learned Single Judge in exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the
that the amount of compensation awarded by the labour
court is inordinately low.
4. We have considered the submissions made on
both sides and have perused the record. The employee in
the proceedings before the labour court had produced
certain documents. From the document Ex.W1 produced
by the employee, it is evident that the employee had
worked continuously for a period of 240 days in a
calendar year. The labour court has also referred to the
circular Ex.W14 issued by Zilla Panchayath, Mysore
stating that the daily wagers appointed after 02.08.1994
on a weekly basis or a monthly basis should not be
removed from service. Ex.P15 and Ex.P16 which are
appointed after 01.07.1994 should not be dispensed with.
The labour court has also referred to the order of the Zilla
Panchayath, Mysore dated 17.03.2001. On the basis of
the evidence on record, the labour court has recorded a
finding that the employee was employed as a cook in
Government College Hostel with effect from 01.04.1990
and had completed 240 days of continuous service in a
calendar year. It was further held that the services were
dispensed with in violation of the Circular issued to the
State Government dated 13.10.1992, 24.08.1994 and
instructions dated 29.07.1995 and in violation of Section
25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The labour court
therefore, by an award dated 05.09.2008 directed
reinstatement of the services of the employee along with
backwages quantified at 50% from 02.05.1998 till the date
of reinstatement. The learned Single Judge however by
an order dated 08.10.2013 has rightly declined to grant
the relief of reinstatement along with backwages. It has
rightly been held by the learned Single Judge that if the
services of a workman is dispensed with illegally, the relief
of reinstatement with backwages is not automatic. The
learned Single Judge by placing reliance on decision of the
Supreme Court in 'RAJ KUMAR VS. JALAGAON
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION', (2013) 2 SCC 751 has held
that the compensation of Rs.1 Lakh is sufficient. The
learned single Judge has therefore directed the employer
to pay compensation of Rs.1 Lakh within two months,
failing which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of
9% per annum till payment. The order passed by learned
Single Judge does not call for any interference in this intra
court appeal except the quantum of compensation
awarded by the learned Single Judge. The relief of
reinstatement cannot be granted as the employee has
expired on 05.09.2020 during the pendency of the appeal.
However, in the facts of the case, the amount of
compensation is enhanced to Rs.2 Lakhs. The aforesaid
amount shall be payable by the employer within two
months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing
which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date it becomes due till payment is
made.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge is modified.
In the result, appeals are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
