Writ Petition No. 14913 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16109 WP No. 14913 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 14913 OF 2023 (L-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MYSORE CITY CORPORATION MYSORE 570007 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE HEALTH OFFICER MYSORE CITY CORPORATION, MYSURU 570007. (BY SRI. GEETHA DEVI M P., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: 1. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR D S/O SRI DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO 1930/1, 13TH CROSS, ASHOKAPURAM, MYSORE 570 008. 2. DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAIK V S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16109 WP No. 14913 of 2023 OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20/02/2023 IN CASE NO. IAA-2/CR-12/2019 ON THE FILE LABOUR DEPARTMENT AS PER ANNEXURE-GCOST OF THE PETITIONGRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT OF THE ORDER DTD 01/07/2017 IN REFERENCE 04 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF LABOUR COURT MYSORE AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND ORDER DTD 20/02/2023 OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO. IAA-2/CR-12/2019 PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE. ANNEXURE-G IN THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER
Legal Reasoning
The first petitioner, a statutory body under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976, and its concerned Officer have filed this petition calling in question the award dated 01.07.2017 in Reference No.4/2017, and the second respondent's order dated 20.02.2023 under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'the ID Act'] for prosecution on the ground that there is a failure to implement the award dated 01.07.2017. This Court, on 24.07.2024, has granted interim order staying the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16109 WP No. 14913 of 2023 operation of the impugned award, and this order is continued from time to time. 2. The first respondent, [the concerned workman] has filed an application for vacating this Interim order and also for wages under Section 17B of the ID Act with effect from 28.09.2017. This Court, on 05.03.2025, while considering these two
Legal Reasoning
applications, has heard Ms. Geetha Devi M.P., the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. V.S. Naik, the learned counsel for the first respondent, with Ms. Geetha Devi M.P. submitting that she would endeavor to verify whether it would be possible to take the first respondent on Rolls as a Gangman on daily wages if the first respondent would not insist for the benefits for the period prior to he being so taken on the Rolls. 3. Thereafter, Ms. Geetha Devi M.P. has caused a copy of the Official Memorandum dated 17.03.2025 to be placed on record. It is seen from - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16109 WP No. 14913 of 2023 this Official Memorandum that the petitioners have permitted the first respondent to report to duty for Cleaning Work subject to payment of basic wages in a sum of Rs.17,306/- and VDA. On 22.03.2025, in view of this Official Memorandum dated 17.03.2025, this Court has directed the petitioners to permit the first respondent to report to duty in terms of such Official Memorandum but with liberty to complete pleadings on his claim for wages under Section 17B of the ID Act. 4. The indisputable facts are that though the petitioners contested the jural relationship, they did not lead evidence to support the same, and it is in the light of the afore, as could be seen from Paragraph No.12, the Labour Court has allowed the Reference dated 31.12.2016 declaring that the first respondent is illegally and unjustly refused employment directing the petitioners to reinstate with the first respondent holding that he would be entitled for continuity - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16109 WP No. 14913 of 2023 service with consequential benefits but not for back wages. The Labour Court’s reasoning in Paragraph No.12 of the impugned order reads as under: "12. xxxxxxx. Though Second Party No.2 and 3 in Ex.W.35- Ex.W.37 taken up contention that the Second Party had taken the services through out sourced agency that was through a labour contractor, no document is produced before this Court to show that through tender process services of workman for cleaning purpose was availed by Second Party No.2 and 3. There is no documents produced by Second Party No.2 and 3 to show that the First Party was serving under any of the contractors who was serving Second Party through supply of contract labourers, under such circumstances, this Court holds that the unchallenged evidence of W.W.1 has established before the Court that, he was working with Second Party as workman and thereby there was jural relationship of employer and workman between them." Ms. Geetha Devi M.P. and Mr. V. S. Naik, the learned counsels for the parties, are heard for final disposal in the light of these circumstances. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16109 WP No. 14913 of 2023 5. Ms. Geetha Devi M.P. contending that, because the Labour Court's decision is essentially an ex parte decision, there must be a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to vindicate their case that the first respondent was not on the Rolls as a regular employee and that he was only hired through an Out-sourcing Agency. Mr. V. S. Naik submits that this Court must consider that if the Labour Court's award is dated 01.07.2017, the petitioners did not take any action to implement the Labour Court’s award and that the present petition is filed after seven years only after the second respondent's order dated 20.02.2023 permitting prosecution. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioners did not even contemplate paying wages until an application is filed under Section 17B of the ID Act; and that these circumstances must be considered for a just decision. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16109 WP No. 14913 of 2023 6. However, it remains salient that the circumstances emphasized by Mr. V S Naik cannot in any manner undermine the petitioners’ principal contention that the Labour Court's award is an ex parte award and for bona fide reasons they could not contest the proceedings to justify their defense that the first respondent was not their employee. Indeed there is undeniable delay in the petitioners acting upon their grievance with the impugned award dated 01.07.2017 but that could also be considered to pass just orders while restoring the proceedings for reconsideration. 7. The restoration of the proceedings will enable the petitioners to bring forth the material on record that could perhaps justify the defense and the first respondent's difficulties is also mostly mitigated because he is taken on Rolls. This Court, in these circumstances and in the interest of justice, and to ensure that there is completion of adjudication with - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16109 WP No. 14913 of 2023 all the material being brought on record, opines that there must be interference with the Labour Court's impugned award and consequentially with the second respondent's order under Section 29 of the Act but on terms. 8. The petitioners and the first respondent must, without further notice, appear before the Labour Court on a designated day and the petitioners must be diligent in exercising this opportunity to bring on record the evidence to vindicate their stand. The first respondent must also be at liberty to lead rebuttal evidence, if so advised. This Court is also of the view that the pleadings must also be completed with liberty in that regard both to the petitioners and the first respondent with the first respondent being at liberty to file a rejoinder/application. Crucially, the petitioners must continue the first respondent on its Rolls in terms of the Official Memorandum dated - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16109 WP No. 14913 of 2023 17.03.2025 until there is a final decision in the restored proceedings. 9. On the question of the first respondent's claim for wages under Section 17B of the ID Act for the period from 28.09.2017, this Court must observe that it is based on the assertion that the first respondent was being paid in a sum of Rs.4,800/- but with the petitioners contending that he was not on the Rolls. Mr. V. S. Naik submits that the total amount payable as wages under 17B of the ID Act will, in the minimum, be in excess of Rs.5,00,000/-, but then, the first respondent is taken on Rolls on substantial wages in a sum of Rs.17,000/- and odd with VDA and he would continue to have the benefit until closure of the restored proceedings before the Labour Court. 10. In the totality of the circumstances and to ensure that there is mutual interests of balance, this Court is of the view that the petitioners, in full and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16109 WP No. 14913 of 2023 final settlement of all claims under Section 17B of the ID Act, must pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the first respondent and that this amount should be paid subject to the right to claim the set-off in the event there is occasion for the same on the final outcome of the restored proceedings. The petitioners must pay this amount either before the next date of hearing as indicated by this Court or on such date. In the light of the afore, the following:
Decision
ORDER [A] The petition is allowed in part, and the Labour Court's impugned order dated 01.07.2017 in Reference No.4/2017 on the file of the Labour Court, Mysuru is quashed restoring the proceedings for reconsideration with liberty to file Statement of Objections and to lead evidence with the first respondent being at liberty to - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16109 WP No. 14913 of 2023 file rejoinder/application and lead rebuttal evidence. [B] The petitioners and the first respondent are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Mysuru on 09.06.2025 without further notice and the parties shall cooperate with the Labour Court for expeditious disposal and the Labour Court shall endeavor to dispose of these proceedings within a period of eight [8] months. [C] The petitioners shall continue the first respondent on Rolls in terms of the Official Memorandum dated 17.03.2025 until the closure of the restored proceedings but without the first respondent claiming any equity therefor. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16109 WP No. 14913 of 2023 [D] The petitioners shall also pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the first respondent subject to claiming set-off on the outcome by 09.06.2025. [E] The pending applications also stand disposed of in terms of this order. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12