IRAPPA v. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM

(BY SRI. VINAYKUMAR BHAT FOR SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATES) AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM. AMENDED AS PER THE ORDER OF THE COURT DATED 1/4/2013 …PETITIONER YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD

THE MANAGEMENT OF N.W.K.R.T.C. BELGAUM DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BELGAUM. AMENDED AS PER THE ORDER OF COURT DATED 01.04.2013. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. PRASHANT HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT AS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11980 WP No. 77039 of 2013 HC-KAR NOTIFIED IN THE RECOVERY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM DATED 06/07/2011 BEARING VIDE ANNEXURE-B BY FIXING THE TIME. UAKABA/IDA/RC-31/2010-11/567 NO. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs: a) A writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent to recover the amount as notified in the recovery certificate issued by the Labour Commissioner, Belgaum dated 06/07/2011 bearing No. UAKABA/IDA/RC- 31/2010-11/567 vide Annexure-B by fixing the time. b) Issue such other writ or order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem circumstances of the case including the cost of this Writ Petition. fit under

2. The relevant facts in nutshell are that the petitioner, who was an employee of the respondent No.2-Corporation was dismissed from services w.e.f. 05.01.2000, which was subject matter of challenge by the workman in KID No.48/2000. The Labour Court vide its award dated 15.04.2005 ordered for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11980 WP No. 77039 of 2013 HC-KAR reinstatement of the workman into service without back wages. The said award dated 15.04.2005 passed in KID No.48/2000 was challenged by the respondent No.2-Corporation before this Court in W.P.No.69/2005 and by order dated 15.01.2013, the said petition was dismissed. In the meanwhile, the workman filed Application No.22/2010 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19471 before the Additional Labour Court, Hubli2 to compute the amount due to him and direct the Corporation to pay the same. Vide order dated 14.02.2011, the Application No.22/2010 was allowed with costs and the following order was passed: “ORDER a. Application filed U/sec. 33 (C-2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is hereby partly allowed with costs. b. The respondent is hereby directed to pay Rs. 2,55,780 together with interest at 6% p.a., thereon from the date of application i.e., from 4-11-2010 till realization.”

Pursuant to the said order dated 14.02.2011 passed in Application No.22/2010, the recovery certificate dated

06.07.2011 (Annexure-B to the writ petition) was issued and a 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Labour Court’ - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11980 WP No. 77039 of 2013 HC-KAR copy was forwarded respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi. Since no action was taken pursuant to the same, a legal notice dated 20.07.2011 (Annexure-C to the writ petition) was got issued by the petitioner to the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, which was served on the Deputy Commissioner on 21.07.2011. Despite receipt of the same, no action has been initiated and hence, the present writ petition is filed.

The above facts clearly demonstrate that the amount due and payable to the petitioner pursuant to the order dated

14.02.2011 passed in Application No.22/2010 by the Labour Court was required to be recovered and the respondent No.1- Deputy Commissioner was required to take necessary steps in accordance with law.