Karnataka High Court
Mr. Yogeesha T N vs The Management Of on 14 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46900-DB
WA No. 476 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL No. 476 OF 2024 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. YOGEESHA T. N.,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY T. S.,
SADANA BADAVANE,
BELAGUMBA (P) ROAD,
TUMKUR - 572104.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VILAS RANGANATH DATAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S KENNAMETAL INDIA LTD.,
Digitally signed 8/9TH MILE, TUMKUR ROAD,
by VALLI BENGALURU - 560073.
MARIMUTHU
Location: High ...RESPONDENT
Court of
Karnataka THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No. 23259/2018 PASSED
BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 07.02.2024 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALSO SET ASIDE BY QUASHING THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT IN ID No.
02/2016 DATED 08.03.2018.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46900-DB
WA No. 476 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)
Heard learned advocate Mr. Vilas Ranganath Datar for the
appellant.
2. This intra court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act 1961 against the order dated 07.02.2024 in Writ
Petition No.23259 of 2018 by the original writ petitioner.
3. The facts in brief are that, the appellant was appointed as
Operator on a temporary basis for a fixed period of 24 months
on 25.09.2010. Renewal of engagement was made for a further
period of one year from 2012 to 2013. The respondent-
Management issued another letter of extension of employment
as Operator on 01.09.2015 for a period of twelve months from
01.10.2015 to 30.09.2016. The appellant, after receiving the
letter of extension, refused to endorse it for acceptance.
4. The appellant stayed away from work from 12.10.2015
without the sanction of leave. The appellant, after three and a
NC: 2024:KHC:46900-DB
half months, addressed a letter dated 29.01.2016 to the
Management that he reported to duty and was not given the
work. The respondent management, by letter dated
08.02.2016, denied the fact of reporting to duty and also
informed that the services of the appellant were discontinued
due to absence from work.
5. The appellant raised a dispute before the Labour Court
seeking reinstatement and continuity of service, with full back
wages and other consequential benefits. The Labour Court, by
order dated 08.03.2018, rejected the claim statement.
6. The order of the Labour Court was the subject matter of
Writ Petition No.23259 of 2018. Learned Single Judge opined
that the appellant on his own accord, stayed away from work
without permission or sanction of leave. Further held that the
respondent Company has not refused employment to the
appellant; the appellant refused to accept an extension of
employment and stayed away from work. While dismissing the
writ petition, learned Single Judge confirmed the order passed
by the Labour Court. It is this order brought under challenge in
this appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:46900-DB
7. Learned advocate Mr. Vilas Ranganath Datar appearing
for the appellant submits that the appellant was appointed on a
temporary basis. However, the work entrusted was permanent.
The appellant is to be considered as permanent employee. On
considering the appellant as a permanent employee, the
removal from service without examining is not permissible.
7.1 Learned advocate further submits that after grant of
renewal of employment on 01.09.2015, the appellant reported
to duty and he was not allowed to work by the respondent-
Management. Management having refused to allow to work,
arbitrarily claiming that the appellant has not reported to duty
after extension of employment. Denial of employment is a
retrenchment, in violation of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (for short 'I.D. ACT'). It is further submitted that the
appellant has worked continuously for five years, by treating
him as permanent, management has extended the gratuity
benefits while settling his dues.
7.2 Learned advocate for the appellant further submits that
the termination of employment is in contravention of certified
standing orders.
NC: 2024:KHC:46900-DB
7.3 Learned advocate for the appellant relies on the
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohtak and Hissar
Districts Electric Supply Co. Ltd., vs. State of U.P. and
others (AIR 1966 SC 1471) and S. Govindaraju vs. KSRTC
and another (1986) 3 SCC 273.
8. Having considered the submissions of the learned
advocate for the appellant and perusal of the appeal papers, it
would indicate that the appellant was appointed as Operator
temporarily on 25.09.2010 for a period of 24 months and
further renewed till 2013. The appellant was provided an
extension of employment as Operator on 01.09.2015 for 12
months from 01.10.2015 to 30.09.2016. The appellant stayed
away from work from 12.10.2015. It is only by letter dated
29.01.2016 the appellant addressed to the Management with
the request to reinstate with backwages and consequential
benefits. In response, the Management has replied that he had
refused to accept the extension of employment and remained
absent without any leave for more than three and a half
months, thereby abandoning the service.
NC: 2024:KHC:46900-DB
9. The Labour Court, considering the pleadings and the
evidence led by the respective parties, has recorded a finding
that the appellant refused to affix his signature towards the
acceptance of the terms and conditions of the extension
provided in the letter dated 01.09.2015, nor issued any letter
of acceptance. This fact is accepted by the appellant in his
cross-examination. The fact that the appellant remained
absent without any leave or permission from the Management
is not disputed. The Labour Court has concluded that the
appellant has voluntarily abandoned employment.
10. While examining the order of Labour Court, learned
Single Judge has meticulously appreciated the evidence on
record and the findings recorded by the Labour Court. Learned
Single Judge has held that the appellant has refused to
acknowledge the terms and conditions of the extension of
employment. It is further held that the absence from work for
more than three and a half months was without permission or
leave. Thereby, it is concluded that it is a case of voluntary
abandonment and not termination.
NC: 2024:KHC:46900-DB
11. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that, the
appellant cannot be accepted as a permanent workman in view
of the specific terms and conditions of the employment, which
would explicitly state that the appellant was engaged as an
Operator on a temporary basis for a fixed term of 24 months
subject to the terms and conditions. The extension provided
was subject to the same terms and conditions for a further
period. The above finding of fact has been appreciated by
learned Single Judge while confirming the same. Similarly,
learned Single Judge held that Section 24 of the I.D. Act is not
applicable considering the nature of the engagement of the
appellant and terms and conditions governing such
engagement, while upholding such findings recorded by Labour
Court.
12. The Court finds no infirmity in the concurrent findings
recorded on appreciation of the order passed by the Labour
Court and by learned Single Judge. The appellant is unable to
point out infirmities in the findings recorded by learned Single
Judge warranting interference of this Court. The order of
learned Single Judge is on revisiting with the facts and the
evidence. The order of the Labour Court is well-reasoned. The
NC: 2024:KHC:46900-DB
Court is not persuaded to take a different view as taken by
learned Single Judge. The order of learned Single Judge needs
no interference.
13. The judgments relied on by learned advocate for the
appellant do not apply to the facts of the present case.
14. In light of the above reasons, writ appeal is devoid of
merits. Accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
MV
