Sadanahalli Fellsite Mines vs Sri M J Mahendra
2023 Latest Caselaw 1854 Kant

                                        -1-
                                                WA No. 1601 of 2018




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

                                     PRESENT
                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                       AND
                  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                     WRIT APPEAL NO.1601 OF 2018 (L-RES)
             BETWEEN:
             SADANAHALLI FELLSITE MINES
             REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR
             SRI. B. C. MUDDUMADAPPA,
             SINCE DEAD
             REP. BY HIS SOLE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
             CUM HIS SON
             1.    SRI.B.M.YATHISH BABU
                   S/O SRI B.C.MUDDUMADAPPA
                   AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

Digitally          BOTH ARE R/AT NO.196,
signed by
GAYATHRI N         23RD CROSS, 6TH BLOCK,
Location:          JAYANAGARA,
HIGH COURT
OF                 BENGALURU-560 082.
KARNATAKA
                                                        ...APPELLANT
             (BY SRI. BHARGAV G., ADV. FOR
                 SRI SOMASHEKAR K.M., ADV.)

             AND:
             SRI M J MAHENDRA
             EX. WORKMAN
             SADANAHALLI FELLSITE MINES
             KRS ROAD, NO.4,
             KALYANA BHAVANA
                               -2-
                                         WA No. 1601 of 2018




C/O SRI S.V.NAGENDRA
THYAGARAJA ROAD
MYSURU - 570 004.
                                               ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. BASAWA PRASAD KUNALE, ADV.)

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, DATED 31/07/2017 VIDE WP
NOS.29326/2017 & 30924/2017 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED     ORDER   DATED    24/01/2017    PASSED    BY   THE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR
COURT, YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU IN PROCEEDINGS CGA
NO.05/2014 CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITIONS.

      THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                           JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal is filed against the order dated

31.07.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge by which

the writ petition preferred by the appellants has been

dismissed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated

are that the appellants are the Proprietors of Sadanahalli

Fellsite Mines. The respondent was employed on

WA No. 1601 of 2018

a consolidated salary of Rs.5,000/- per month in the

establishment of the appellants' at Sadanahalli Fellsite

Mines. However, it is the case of the respondent that the

salary due to him was not paid and when he made a

demand for arrears of salary, his services were terminated

in the month of April 2000.

3. Thereupon the respondent filed a petition under

Section 33(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for

short 'the Act') in which inter alia it was pleaded that he

has not been paid arrears of salary for the period from

January 1992 till April 2000. The respondent thus claims

that Rs.5,55,000/- as due and payable to him. The notice

of the proceedings was served on the appellants.

However, the appellants did not appear before the Labour

Court. The Labour Court by order dated 24.01.2017

directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.5,55,000/- to

the respondent.

4. The appellants challenged the order dated 24.01.2017

passed by the Labour Court in the Writ Petition. The

WA No. 1601 of 2018

learned Single Judge by order dated 31.07.2017 has

dismissed the writ petition. In the aforesaid factual

background this appeal has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the

appellants be granted an opportunity to contest the claim

set up by the respondent. It is further submitted that the

respondent is not a 'workman' within the meaning of

Section 2(s) of the Act.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

supported the impugned order passed by the learned

Single Judge.

7. We have considered the rival submissions made and

have perused the record. Admittedly the notice of the

proceedings was served on the appellants. However, the

appellants have not chosen to appear before the Labour

Court and contest the claim set up by respondent.

8. The Labour Court on the basis of un-controverted

testimony of the respondent has held that he is a

WA No. 1601 of 2018

'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act.

It has further been held that in the absence of any contest

on behalf of the appellants, the respondent is entitled to

seek a sum of Rs.5,55,000/- from the appellants. The

aforesaid order has been upheld by the learned Single

Judge.

9. Neither the order passed by the Labour Court nor the

order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from any

infirmity warranting interference of this Court in this intra

court appeal. In the result, the same fails and is hereby

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

NG CT:DMN