Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller Nekrtc vs Ramanna on 25 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5335
WP No. 203074 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT PETITION NO. 203074 OF 2023 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NEKRTC DIVISION -I,
KALABURAGI,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RAMANNA S/O SHIVASHARANAPPA
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: NIL (EX CONDUCTOR 2713, DEPOT NO. 2,
Digitally signed by KALABURAGI),
KHAJAAMEEN L
MALAGHAN R/O FARTHABAD VILLAGE,
Location: HIGH TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585102.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K RAVINDRA AND
SRI REVANARADHYA C. HIREMATH, ADVOCATES)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 27-07-2023 IN
APPLICATION NO. 02/2023, VIDE ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY
THE DISTRICT JUDGE AND PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR
COURT, KALABURAGI. B) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS OR
DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS JUST AND
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5335
WP No. 203074 of 2023
PROPER UNDER THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India calling in question the
correctness of the impugned judgment passed by the
Labour Court in Application No.2/2023.
2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for
following relief:
i) Set aside the impugned award dated 27-07-2023
in Application No.02/2023, vide Annexure-B
passed by the District Judge and Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Kalaburagi.
ii) Pass such other orders or directions as this
Hon'ble Court deems just and proper under the
fact and circumstances of the case and allow this
writ petition.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5335
3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent-
employee was serving as Conductor in the petitioner-
Corporation. According to the pleadings before the Labour
Court he was appointed during the year 1994 and
regularized during the year 1998. During 2010 due to
personal reasons he took voluntary retirement from
service (for short, 'VRS'). He moved an application before
the Corporation. His application for VRS was approved and
he was permitted to retire vide order dated DEO
No.442/2010 dated 21.11.2010 with effect from
28.10.2010.
4. The petitioner-Corporation issued a Circular,
which is produced at Annexure-A. According to which a
person who takes VRS would be given additional benefit
based on his previous service prior to VRS or remaining
period of service after VRS. Calculations were given in
Circular No.1335 dated 12.08.2005.
5. The petitioner has said to be paid the said
additional benefit as per Circular No.1335 and minimum
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5335
amount of Rs.75,000/- was paid at the time of retirement,
which was not in dispute before the Labour Court.
6. After lapse of about 12 years, respondent-
employee filed application under Section 33(c)(2) of
Industrial Disputes Act (for short, 'I.D.Act') praying to
pass an order directing the Corporation to pay the amount
of Rs.2,50,000/- with consequential benefits and interest.
7. Before the Labour Court the Corporation had
filed objections and both the parties have recorded the
evidence.
8. The Labour Court considering the Circular
No.1335 dated 12.08.2005 calculated the additional
benefit to be paid under the said Circular, taking into
consideration second part of the said Circular on the
premise that as per the KSRTC regulations, which are
beneficial to the employees has to be considered.
Accordingly, calculated the amount for which respondent-
employee was entitled i.e. for Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5335
under the said Circular and the petitioner-Corporation had
already paid Rs.75,000/-. Therefore, directed to pay
remaining amount of Rs.1,25,000/- by the impugned
award dated 27.07.2023. The correctness of the said order
is challenged in the present writ petition.
9. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for
the petitioner-Corporation and there is no representation
on behalf of respondent-employee.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner-
Corporation would submit that the said Circular No.1335
has got two portions, which was extracted by the Labour
Court in the impugned order relevant portion of same is
reproduced hereunder.
"An amount of calculation one month's pay
Or
45 days pay (Basic + DA) for each year (fully
year) of remaining service."
11. According to the petitioner-Corporation,
workman had served the Corporation from 1994-2010 i.e.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5335
around 16 years. He further submits that as per his
instructions remaining period of service left over at the
time of permitting the respondent for VRS was 7 years. As
per the said Circular, the amount whichever is less has to
be paid. The petitioner-Corporation calculating the same
on the basis of the left over the service of 7 years, paid
Rs.75,000/-. Hence, there is no liability on the petitioner-
Corporation to pay the arrears.
12. These facts are not bourn out from the
impugned order. If we look into Annexure-A of the
impugned order no records were produced by the
Corporation to disclose the date of his appointment, date
of birth, date of retirement, his pay, etc. Therefore, the
Tribunal on the basis of oral evidence given by both the
parties considered that left over service of the respondent
herein was 16 years and considering the second part of
the Circular No.1335, which was beneficial to the
respondent herein and calculated the amount payable to
the respondent-employee.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5335
13. Since nothing was placed on record before the
Tribunal, helplessly has passed orders on the basis of the
facts deposed by the MW.1, it has accepted particulars
given by him and calculated amount payable to the
respondent-employee. In the absence of materials, this
Court also cannot hold that the Labour Court has
committed an error in calculation of the amount payable to
respondent-employee.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner-
Corporation vehemently contends that under Section
33(c)(2) of the I.D.Act, is meant for recovering of the
determined amount between the employer and employee,
the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to determine the
same. In respect of the said submission, he relies on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union
of India and another vs. Kankuben (Dead) By Lrs.
And others1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if
the outstanding amount is to be calculated then the
92006) 9 SCC 292
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5335
Labour Court has no jurisdiction to assess and calculate
the same. The said provision could be used only to
recover the money due from the employer.
15. The facts of this case is different. In that case
even the amount to be given to labour for doing overtime
work had to be calculated. In the present case there is no
much calculation required had the Corporation or the
workman submitted the materials it could be easily
considered and calculated as mentioned in Circular
No.1335. Therefore, considering the facts of this case
petition was maintainable before the Labour Court.
16. The petitioner-Corporation relied on the case of
M/s Bombay Chemical Industries vs. Deputy Labour
Commissioner & Anr.2, the facts of this case are totally
different. In this case workman was demanding for
payment of arrears of additional benefit for opting VRS
which ought to be calculated as per Circular 1335.
Civil Appeal No.813 of 2022 DD 04.02.2022
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5335
However in the case of Bombay Chemical Industries
(supra) and there was serious dispute between the
workman and employer, regarding relationship of
employer and employee. Inspite of such dispute, the
Labour Court proceeded with deciding outstanding wages.
Looking into the same the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
the said Labour Court has no jurisdiction. Due to non-
availability of the required materials, the Labour Court
considered the claim of the employee/workman on the
basis of the oral evidence of witness of the Corporation.
Therefore, principle of law laid down in the said judgment
in no way assist the petitioner-Corporation to buttress its
arguments.
17. The Labour Court while calculating the amount
held that as per regulation of the KSRTC Regulation which
is beneficial to workman has to be applied. However, the
said regulation is not quoted in the impugned judgment
and the learned counsel for the Corporation submits that
there is no such regulation.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5335
18. The Industrial Disputes Act is enacted for the
benefit of workman. Most of the provisions of the said Act
is pertaining to the benefit of the workman. It is not clear
regarding the regulations referred by the Labour Court for
considering the beneficial scheme to the employee. There
are no materials to hold that the said finding is erroneous.
Hence not disturbed.
19. The Labour Court appreciating the oral evidence
available before it and also considering the Circular,
passed the impugned order. Under the writ proceedings,
this Court cannot sit as appellate court and re-appreciate
the evidence and give the findings. The required materials
were not available before the Labour Court. The
Corporation could have produced service record of the
respondent-employee to disclose the date of birth of
employee/workman, his date of appointment in the
Corporation, amount of salary paid and date of accepting
VRS, etc., The entire judgment of the Labour Court was on
the basis of the oral evidence led by both the parties,
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5335
wherein it is stated in the impugned order that
respondent-employee admitted the left over period of
service of petitioner was around 16 years. On the basis of
same, calculations were made.
20. I do not find any grounds to interfere in the
findings of the Labour Court. Accordingly, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is dismissed.
ii) Whatever amount deposited by the
petitioner-Corporation, if any, is directed
to be transmitted to the concerned Court.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
SDU
CT:PK
