Writ Petition No. 41505 of 2012 · The High Court · 2012
Case Details
WP No. 41505 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.41505 OF 2012 (L-RES) BETWEEN: G.PRABHUDEV AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE N.V.GIRIYAPPA WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER GRADE-II STAFF NO.3781440/251 SC/PV ELECTRONICS DIVISION BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED P.B.NO.2606, MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE – 560 026. (BY SRI.MURALIDHAR H.M., ADVOCATE) AND: BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED ELECTRONICS DIVISION POST BOX NO.2606, MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE – 560 026 REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HR) (BY SWAMY S. SINGH, ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 25TH APRIL 2012 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.7/2009 (UNDER ANNEXURE-R TO THE WRIT PETITION) BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT / COMPANY TO ACCORD THE PETITIONER TIME BOUND PROMOTION, WAGE ARREARS DUE TO WAGE REVISION DATED 15.11.2000 AND ALL OTHER BENEFITS AS CLAIMED BY HIM IN APPLICATION 7/2009 BEFORE THE 1ST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE AND ETC. - 2 - WP No.41505 of 2012 THIS WRIT PETITION PERTAINS TO PRINCIPAL BENCH BENGALURU HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 14.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS AT KALABURAGI BENCH THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING : CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE C.A.V.ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 25.04.2012 in Application No.7 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Labour Court at Bangalore. 2. In terms of the said order, the petitioner's application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’), is rejected. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was suspended from service in the year 1997, on the premise that a criminal case is filed by the petitioner’s relative against the petitioner alleging an offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. The offence alleged is nothing to do with the employment of the petitioner. - 3 - WP No.41505 of 2012 4. The petitioner was tried and was acquitted. The order of acquittal is not questioned by the State. The order of acquittal has attained finality. 5. Learned counsel would contend that under the applicable Service Rules, in case of acquittal, the petitioner is entitled to revocation of suspension and reinstatement with all full backwages and consequential benefits. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was suspended in 1997 and suspension was revoked in 2003 and was reinstated into service in 2003. However, all the benefits were not conferred on the petitioner. 7. Since some of the service benefits were withheld, the petitioner made a representation to grant full benefits. As it was not considered, the petitioner filed a
Decision
Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was allowed, direction was issued to the respondent-Management to consider the representation. - 4 - WP No.41505 of 2012 8. Thereafter, the respondent-Management filed an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge. Appeal is dismissed. Despite that, the representation was not considered. The petitioner initiated contempt proceeding. In the contempt proceeding, during the pendency of the appeal before the Division Bench, the respondent considered the representation, issued an endorsement denying the benefits. Subsequently, the Writ Appeal was dismissed. However, the liberty was reserved to the petitioner to challenge the endorsement. 9. The endorsement is questioned before the Labour Court by invoking Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947. The Labour Court has rejected the application on the premise that there is no adjudication or settlement conferring the right in favour of the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the benefits available in a situation narrated above can be noticed in terms of Annexure-A17 which is the Circular issued by the respondent. He would - 5 - WP No.41505 of 2012 contend that since the Circular is not in dispute and it is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner had the benefit of hon'ble acquittal, the Labour Court committed an error in rejecting the application on the premise that there is no award or settlement. Referring to Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947, he would contend that the benefit claimed by the petitioner can be quantified from the admitted documents of the respondent and it is based on the pre-existing right. 11. In the alternative, it is urged that if Circular is not applicable, then the petitioner is entitled to full wages during suspension under the applicable Standing Orders. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments: i) Fabril Gasosa Vs. Labour Commissioner and Ors.1 ii) State Bank of India Vs. Ram Chandra Dubey and Ors.2 iii) State of U.P. and Anr. Vs. Brijal Singh3
Decision
ORDER (i) The petition is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned order dated 25.04.2012 passed by I Additional Labour Court at Bengaluru in Application No.7/2009 is set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. (iv) The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 09.06.2025 Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS/GVP