Karnataka High Court

M/S Precision Diagnostics Centre vs Sri V Sudhir Kumar on 7 March, 2024

Author: S.G.Pandit

Bench: S.G.Pandit

                                             -1-
                                                          NC: 2024:KHC:9514
                                                        WP No. 3397 of 2019




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                           DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
                                           BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
                            WRIT PETITION NO.3397 OF 2019 (L-PW)
                   BETWEEN:
                   M/S PRECISION DIAGNOSTICS CENTRE
                   NO 580, OPP 101, GANAPATHI CIRCLE,
                   THAGARAJA ROAD, FORT MOHALLA,
                   MYSURU - 570001
                   REP BY ITS MANAGER,
                   SMT NAGASHREE PRASDA K C
                                                               ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA B, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
                   SRI. V SUDHIR KUMAR
                   S/O T VENKATARAMAIAH,
                   AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
                   NO 713, KADAPPA GARADI ROAD,
                   DEVARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 001
                                                             ...RESPONDENT

Digitally signed   (BY SRI. V. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE)
by A K                 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CHANDRIKA
                   CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           DATED 06.10.2018 PASSED BY THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
KARNATAKA          JUDGE, MYSURU IN MA NO.15/2017 (ANNX-D) AND ETC.

                       THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
                   HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                           ORDER

The petitioner/management is before this Court

calling in question the order dated 16.12.2014 passed by

NC: 2024:KHC:9514

the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Competent

Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short

'1936 Act'), Mysuru Division, Mysuru, directing the

petitioner/management to pay a sum of Rs.51,187/-

wages with Rs.18,000/- damages and also appellate court

order dated 06.10.2018 in M.A.No.15/2017 by the VII

Additional District Judge, Mysuru, rejecting the appeal filed

by the petitioner.

2. Heard learned counsel, Sri.Manjunatha B for the

petitioner. There is no representation for respondent

continuously.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that respondent/workman joined the

petitioner/management as a Manager during October'

2012 and is said to have left the job during first week of

April' 2013. Complaining that petitioner/management

failed to pay wages for the period from 10.10.2012 to

26.06.2013, respondent/workman filed an application

NC: 2024:KHC:9514

under Section 15 of 1936 Act before the Competent

Authority.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that though notice of the proceedings before the Assistant

Labour Commissioner and Competent Authority was

served on the petitioner/management, the

petitioner/management could not appear before the

Competent Authority and file objections. Learned counsel

would submit that Competent Authority taking note of the

material produced by the respondent/workman proceeded

to direct the petitioner/management to pay balance of

wages along with damages. Further it is submitted that

aggrieved by the order of Competent Authority the

petitioner/management filed an appeal under Section 17

of 1936 Act before the learned District Judge at Mysuru.

He submitted that learned District Judge under judgment

dated 06.10.2018 dismissed the appeal confirming the

order passed by the Competent Authority.

NC: 2024:KHC:9514

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that respondent/workman received salary for the period

from October' 2012 to June' 2013. Despite receiving the

salary/wages, the respondent/workman made false claim

before the Competent Authority alleging non-payment of

wages. Learned counsel draws attention of this Court to

Annexure-C - bank statement i.e., Punjab National Bank

for the period from 2010 to 2013 and points out that

respondent/workman was paid wages during the relevant

period. Learned counsel would submit that for

unavoidable reasons, the petitioner/management could

not appear before the competent authority and also

petitioner/management could not place on record any

document even before the Appellate Court. Thus, learned

counsel would pray for an opportunity to establish its case

of making payment of wages. Learned counsel would

submit that since the respondent/workman is being paid

wages, he pays for an opportunity to place on record the

document to show such payment before the Competent

Authority.

NC: 2024:KHC:9514

6. There is no representation for the

respondent/workman.

7. The only point which falls for consideration on

hearing learned counsel for the petitioner/management is

as to whether the petitioner/management needs to be

given an opportunity to put forth its case before the

Competent Authority under 1936 Act. The answer to the

above point would be in the affirmative for the following

reasons.

8. Respondent/workman was working with the

petitioner/management. The respondent/workman filed

an application under Section 15 of the 1936 Act claiming

balance wages from petitioner/management. It is an

admitted fact that though notice of the proceedings was

served on the management, petitioner/management failed

to appear before the Competent Authority and file its

objections. The Competent Authority taking note of the

respondent/workman's case and material produced by

NC: 2024:KHC:9514

respondent/workman, proceeded to pass order directing

the petitioner/management to pay balance of wages and

also damages under impugned order dated 16.12.2014.

The appeal filed by the petitioner/management against the

order before the learned District Judge, Mysuru, was also

dismissed. While dismissing the appeal the learned

District Judge has observed that though notice was duly

served to petitioner/management, the

petitioner/management willfully not appeared or contested

the petition before the Competent Authority. Further it is

observed that no documents regarding ill-health of the

petitioner is placed before the Court.

9. It is admitted fact that the petitioner failed to

appear before the Competent Authority and file objections

and before the Appellate Authority also failed to produce

any document regarding payment of wages to

respondent/workman or any document to establish the ill-

health of the petitioner to appear before the Competent

Authority. However, Annexure-C - Bank statement is

NC: 2024:KHC:9514

produced before this Court along with writ petition to

prove the payment of wages to the respondent/workman

during relevant period i.e., from October' 2012 to June'

2013. Certain entries are shown for having made

payment to respondent/workman - Sri.Sudheer Kumar.

10. It may not be proper for this Court to take note

of Annexure-C and to pass orders in this writ petition. The

respondent/workman is also to be given an opportunity to

have his say on the said bank statement, which the

petitioner has placed on record before this Court. When

the petitioner/management specifically contends and

places on record document to say that the

respondent/workman is paid salary, same needs

consideration. At the same time, the remand as prayed

for by the petitioner shall be with a condition as the

respondent/workman would be entitled for costs of the

proceedings, since he has to prosecute the petition before

the Assistant and Labour Commissioner and Competent

Authority. The costs of the proceedings is quantified at

NC: 2024:KHC:9514

Rs.15,000/-, which shall be paid by the

petitioner/management to the respondent/workman

before proceeding further before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner and Competent Authority.

11. For the reasons recorded above, the following

order:

ORDER

(i) Writ petition is disposed of.

(ii) The Order dated 16.12.2014 bearing

No.ALCM/PWA/CR-35/214-15 passed by

the Assistant Labour Commissioner and

Competent Authority under Payment of

Wages Act, Mysuru Division, Mysuru, as

well as judgment dated 06.10.2018

passed in M.A.No.15/2017 on the file of

VII Additional District Judge, Mysuru,

are set aside.


     (iii)   Matter   is   remanded         to    the   Assistant

               Labour Commissioner and Competent

                                           NC: 2024:KHC:9514





               Authority   under    1936     Act,   for

               reconsideration.

(iv) The petitioner shall file objections along

with relevant documents within one

month from the date of appearance

before the Competent Authority and

also shall pay costs of Rs.15,000/- to

respondent/workman on the first date

of appearance.