Writ Petition No. 19866 of 2013 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1363 WP No. 19866 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 19866 OF 2013 (L-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ADMINISTRATIVE TRAINING INSTITUTE, LALITHAMAHAL ROAD, MYSORE 11, (ABDUL NAZIR SAB STATE INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT) 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S. BUILDING, 2ND STAGE, 3RD FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE. (BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP) …PETITIONERS
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. 2. CHANDRASHEKARA, S/O MARIYAPPA, AGE 42 YEARS, MARIYAMMA, AGE MAJOR C/O MYSORE DIVISION WORKERS GENERAL ASSOCIATION, NO. 51/1, MAIN ROAD, GOKULAM, 1ST STAGE MYSORE - 575 001. SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1363 WP No. 19866 of 2013
Legal Reasoning
2(A). SHRI. MAHADEVA, S/O LATE MARIYAMMA, AGED 50 YEARS, NO. 1328, 1ST CROSS, KURUBARAHALLI, MYSORE - 570 011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2(A)) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.8.2012 PASSED IN REF.NO.4 OF 2005 BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, MYSORE VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is directed against the award dated 27.08.2012. In terms of the impugned award, the petitioners are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation in view of the re-instatement in favour of the first parties to the proceedings in reference No.4/2005 on the file of the Labour Court at Mysore. 2. Aggrieved by the aforementioned award, the respondents in the proceedings before the Labour Court are before this Court as the petitioners. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1363 WP No. 19866 of 2013 3. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners would contend that the award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- each of the first parties is erroneous as the first parties before the Labour Court did not establish the relationship of employer and employee. In the further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the first parties before the Labour Court were employed by the independent contractor and that independent contractor had supplied the petitioners as contract laborers and no payment is made by the respondents towards wages, as such, the labour Court erred in passing an award holding that the relationship of employer and employee established. 4. It is the further contention that there is no justification in awarding Rs.50,000/- as compensation to each of the first parties and relationship of employer and employee is not established. If at all there is any liability to pay compensation, the said liability is on the independent contractor and not on the petitioners is the submission. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on other hand, would submit that the petitioners before this Court - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1363 WP No. 19866 of 2013 have taken a contradictory stand. It is his contention that the claim that first parties before the labour Court were employed through an independent contractor is not established as the petitioners before this Court have not examined any independent contractor to establish the relationship between the principal employer and the immediate employer through a contract of employment. 6. It is also contended that the wages paid to the first parties before the Labour Court is paid by the petitioners before this Court, as such, the relationship of employer and employee is very much established. However, the Labour Court has passed an award awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- each to the first parties in lieu of reinstatement. The first parties in the proceedings before the Labour Court have accepted the award and they are not insisting for reinstatement and it is also his further submission that compensation of Rs.50,000/- is awarded way back in the year 2012 and so far the amount is not paid and the petitioners should be directed to pay a reasonable interest on the said amount as more than 12 years have been elapsed since the date of award. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1363 WP No. 19866 of 2013 7. It is further submitted that the award amount is not deposited before this Court and had it been deposited before this Court, the amount would have been kept in a bank which would have earned interest and the first parties in the proceedings before the Labour Court would have had the benefit of interest accrued on the said amount. 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 9. The following points arise for consideration: a) Whether the petitioners established that the first parties before the Labour Court are the employees supplied by the independent contractor? b) Whether the petitioners established that the award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- is erroneous? c) Whether the first parties before the Labour Court are entitled for interest on the compensation awarded? 10. As can be noticed from the records, the fact that the wages are made to the first parties before the Labour Court by the respondents is very much established. Though the petitioners have taken a contention that the respondents were working under an independent contractor, and independent - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1363 WP No. 19866 of 2013 contractor had supplied the labourers to the petitioners, the said contention is not established either by examining the independent contractor or by producing the contract of labour agreement executed between the independent contractor and the petitioners. This being the position that this Court is of the view that the finding of the Labour Court that first parties before it were employed by the petitioners is very much established. 11. This Court has considered the reasons assigned by the Labour Court after going through the reasons and after going through the materials placed on record, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. As far as the contention that the compensation of Rs.50,000/- is on the higher side is concerned, it is borne out from the records that MW-1 himself has admitted that from 1994 to 1998, the first parties before the Labour Court were working under the petitioners. Since they have worked for 4 years, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded instead of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1363 WP No. 19866 of 2013 reinstatement is not higher side as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 13. It is required to be noticed is this compensation is awarded in the year 2012 and no interest is awarded on the said amount. Once the amount is determined in terms of an award and the award should ideally carry interest in case the amount is not paid within a reasonable period. However, the Labour Court has not paid any interest on the said amount. This petition is pending before this Court for the last 12 years. If the petitioners were not directed to pay the reasonable amount without interest on the said amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded as compensation, the first parties before the Labour Court would be put to substantial hardship and compensation of Rs.50,000/- paid after 12 years without any interest in reality is no compensation at all. 14. It is indeed true that the first parties before the Labour Court have not approached this Court arising the grievance that no interest is awarded on the compensation. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1363 WP No. 19866 of 2013 15. Nevertheless, the Court's power in exercise of jurisdiction to impose reasonable interest is not curtailed. The admitted factual position is the amount which is determined as a compensation is still retained by the petitioners. That amount was due from the date of award dated 27.08.2012, having utilized the said amount from the last 12 years, it is necessary to direct the petitioners to pay an interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the said amount. Hence, the following:
Decision
a) The petition is dismissed. ORDER b) The petitioners shall pay Rs.50,000/- each to respondent Nos.2 and 2(a). An amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of award i.e., 27.08.2012 till the date of payment. c) Payment shall be made within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35 CT: BHK