Writ Petition No. 2355 of 2015 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6342 WP No. 2355 of 2015 C/W WP No. 25216 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 2355 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC) WRIT PETITION NO. 25216 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC) C/W IN WP No.2355/2015: BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL DIVISION, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER. (BY SMT. RENUKA H. R, ADVOCATE) AND: B KRISHNA, S/O LATE BALAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O VENKATAPADMA NILAYA, NO.20, GOPAL JISHI, AREHALLI, SUBRAMANYA POST, BANGALORE-560061. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K B NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.1.2014 IN APPLICATION NO. 22/2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE VIDE ANN-G. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6342 WP No. 2355 of 2015 C/W WP No. 25216 of 2015 IN WP NO. 25216/2015: BETWEEN: B KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE BALLAPPA GOWDA, R/AT VENKATAPADMA NILAYA, NO.20, GOPAL JOSHI, AREHALLI, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 061.
Legal Reasoning
...PETITIONER (BY SRI K B NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC CENTRAL DIVISION, K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. (BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE) ...RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.28.1.2014 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT IN APPLICATION NO.22/2012 VIDE ANNEX-A IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE REJECTION OF THE CLAIM FOR FULL WAGES FROM THE DATE OF THE AWARD [23.8.2005] TILL THE DATE OF ACTUAL REINSTATEMENT [11.1.2008] AMOUNTING TO RS.4,25,354/- AND FOR ENCASHMENT OF 240 DAYS OF EARNED LEAVE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,72,320/- AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY THE ABOVE AMOUTNS TO HIM AND / OR TO PASS ANY OTHER ORDER AS DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6342 WP No. 2355 of 2015 C/W WP No. 25216 of 2015 ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Writ Petition No.2355/2015 is filed by Corporation and W.P.No.25216/2015 is filed by the workman assailing the order dated 28.01.2014 in Application No.22/2012, on the file of Principal Labour Court, Bengaluru. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the proceedings are referred to as Corporation and the workman. 4. The workman had raised industrial dispute in I.D.No.209/2000 before the Labour Court, Bengaluru. In terms of the award dated 23.08.2005, the petition was allowed and the order of dismissal dated 25.07.2000 passed against the workman by the Corporation was set aside. The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the workman to his original post with continuity of service and awarded 20% backwages. The award also provided that in case the workman is not found fit, liberty was reserved to the Corporation to discharge the workman. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6342 WP No. 2355 of 2015 C/W WP No. 25216 of 2015 5. The petitioner-Corporation is aggrieved by the direction of the Labour Court to pay Rs.14,200/- towards difference of wages from the date of reinstatement till the date of superannuation as prayed in the petition within two months from the date of the order. In terms of the very same order, the applicant's claim for full back wages from the date of the award till the date of actual reinstatement and leave encashment benefit for 240 days is rejected. 6. The award was called in question by the Corporation by filing Writ Petition No.2484/2006. This Court vide order dated 28.01.2011 allowed Writ Petition No.2484/2006 in-part and award for 20% backwages was set aside and all other aspects of the award were kept intact. The Court also noticed that the workman was reinstated in the alternative job on the last drawn wages and the Court also clarified that the Corporation shall pay current wages from the date of reinstatement in the alternative job. 7. The workman raised a dispute under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6342 WP No. 2355 of 2015 C/W WP No. 25216 of 2015 1947') in Application No.22/2012 making a claim that he was not granted wages from 30 days from the publication of the award. 8. The claim of the workman was resisted by the Corporation contending that the workman has not reported to duty, despite the communication sent by the Corporation, and has not produced necessary fitness certificate issued by the Competent Authority. Thus, he would urge that the workman is not entitled to the relief claimed in Application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947. 9. The Labour Court after considering the evidence on record has concluded that the workman is entitled to difference amount of Rs.14,200/- towards wages from the date of reinstatement till the date of superannuation. The remaining claim made by the workman was rejected by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the aforementioned two Writ Petitions are filed. 10. Learned counsel for the Corporation would contend that the Labour Court committed an error in taking - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6342 WP No. 2355 of 2015 C/W WP No. 25216 of 2015 the basic pay of the workman at Rs.8450/-. It is the contention that the basic pay was only Rs.4715/- and typographical error in mentioning basic pay for the month of January-2009 is wrongly interpreted by the Labour Court to hold that there is no explanation by the Corporation as to why the basic pay has been reduced from Rs.8450/- to Rs.4715/- in subsequent months. 11. It is further contended that the erroneous entry in the basic pay in the month of January-2009 could not have been taken as actual basic pay of the workman. The basic pay was only Rs.4715/- as can be noticed from the salary certificate for December 2008 and the salary certificate for the month of February 2009 to April 2009. It is also contended that the workman has not objected to the correction made in the basic pay in the month of February 2009 onwards. Thus, it is contended that the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner is entitled to difference of Rs.14,200/- from the date of reinstatement till the date of superannuation has to be set aside. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6342 WP No. 2355 of 2015 C/W WP No. 25216 of 2015 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand would defend the said portion of the order and would contend that in the month of January 2009, the basic pay has been mentioned Rs.8450/- and without any justification, same has been reduced to Rs.4715/- in the subsequent months and the Labour Court is justified in holding that the Corporation has not provided any acceptable explanation for reduction. 13. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 14. The records would reveal that the workman has not made a claim that his basic pay for the month of December 2008 was Rs.8450/-. From the pay slip for the month of December 2008, it is noticed that his basic pay was Rs.4715/-. Under what circumstances, the basic pay was enhanced from Rs.4715/- to Rs.8450/- is not forthcoming. And thereafter, again, it is noticed that the basic pay is recorded as Rs.4715/- from February to April 2009. Looking into the documents produced before the Court, this Court is - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6342 WP No. 2355 of 2015 C/W WP No. 25216 of 2015 of the view that the recording the basic pay at Rs.8450/- is a typographical error and the Labour Court committed an error in holding that the Corporation has to explain the reduction in the basic pay for February to April 2009. The Labour Court has not noticed the fact that during the month of December 2008, basic pay of Rs.4,715/- is not disputed by the workman. 15. Under these circumstances, the finding of the Labour Court to the said extent has to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 16. As far as the claim of the workman that soon after the expiry of 30 days from the publication of the award in the Gazette, the Corporation was under obligation to reinstate the workman and from that date, the wages have to be computed till the date of superannuation is concerned, it is required to be noticed that despite the award for reinstatement, the person in whose favour the order of reinstatement is passed has to report to the duty. In case, the person does not report to the duty, despite the order of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6342 WP No. 2355 of 2015 C/W WP No. 25216 of 2015 reinstatement, he is not entitled to claim the wages from 30 days after the expiry of the publication in the Gazette. Assuming that the award was gazetted in the month of August 2005, the question is whether the workman has reported to duty after the publication of the award. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the workman would contend that this Court in Writ Petition filed by the Corporation did not stay the operation of the award relating to reinstatement, as such there was an obligation on the part of the Corporation to reinstate the workman. 18. Learned counsel would refer to the letter dated 03.10.2005, requesting the Corporation to reinstate the workman. Though the said letter is dated 03.10.2005, the window receipt annexed to the said letter on the reverse page would indicate that the window receipt is dated 11.10.2006. Thus, it is not safe to rely on this letter. It is also noticed that the letter does not contain any acknowledgment by the Corporation for having received the said letter. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6342 WP No. 2355 of 2015 C/W WP No. 25216 of 2015 19. The next letter is the letter dated 06.06.2006 wherein the workman has made a request to allow him to report to duty. To this letter, Corporation claims to have sent a reply requesting the workman to produce fitness certificate and it is further stated that the said letter is returned with an endorsement "addressee not claimed and returned to sender". The Corporation has also contended that the letter was sought to be served personally by serving through the employee of the Corporation, by sending the said employee to the changed residential address of the workman at 'Venkatapadma nilaya' and to that effect the document is marked at Ex.-R4. 20. Based on the records produced, it is noticed that the communication sent by the Corporation is not received by the workman. Though the learned counsel has made a statement that the workman approached the Corporation in the year 2005 as well as in the month of June-2006, it is not established that the Corporation refused to allow the workman from reporting to duty. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6342 WP No. 2355 of 2015 C/W WP No. 25216 of 2015 21. However, what is also required to be noticed is that on 11.09.2007, this Court had modified the interim order granted earlier and permitted the Corporation to reinstate the workman an alternative job. This would indicate that the Corporation has accepted the fact that the workman is not fit to resume to his duty as driver but he is entitled to alternative job. From 11.09.2007 onwards, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Corporation has sent a letter to the workman to join the duty. Later, Corporation issued a letter dated 26.03.2008, accepting the reinstatement of workman on the alternative job. Though the letter is dated 26.03.2008, for all practical purposes, it was treated as reinstatement with effect from 11.01.2008. 22. It is noticed that the interim order is modified on 11.09.2007. Under these circumstances, atleast the workman should have been reinstated to the alternative job with effect from 11.09.2007. However, reinstatement has happened only in the month of March, with effect from 11.01.2008. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:6342 WP No. 2355 of 2015 C/W WP No. 25216 of 2015 23. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the workman is entitled for wages treating the date of reinstatement as 11.09.2007 till 11.01.2008. To the said
Decision
extent, the impugned order is modified. 24. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petitions are allowed in-part. (ii) The Order dated 28.01.2014 in Application No.22/2012 on the file of Principal Labour Court, Bangalore is modified. (iii) No order as to cost. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27