BY SRI. RAVI v. HOSMANI

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N .KPATIL WRIT PETITION NO.62750/2011(L-KSRTC) B ETW E EN: THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC BELGAUM DIVISION REPRSENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLTER BELGAUM DIVISION, BELGAUM PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY IT’S THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER CENTRAL OFFICES, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI 580 030. (BY SRI. RAVI V. HOSMANI, ADV) AND: RAMA, Sb DEVANNA NAIK AGE 61 YEARS, 0CC: RETD. DRIVER R/O KALBAG, ANKOLA TQ., UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. PETITIONER RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 14/05/2010 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL COURT, IN APPLICATION NO.2/2009 PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. LABOUR HUBLI 2 ThIS WRiT Pt[nlON COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, ThIS DAY, ThE COURT ThE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner-corporation assailing the correctness of the award dated 14/05/2010 passed by the Additional Labour Court, Hubil In Application No.2/2009 vide Annexure ‘B” has presented this writ petition.

#2. The undisputed facts of the case on hand are the respondent was a driver In the petitioner- Corporation. Though an error In entering the date of birth of the respondent has crept In his service register, the respondent himself has not chosen to object it nor have It corrected till his retirement. In fact even after the incIdent of peremature retirement, took four months to point out the mIstake. But while passing the Impugned award, the Labour Court has awarded salary for that period also. The Corporation on the other hand ImmedIately after noticing the mistake got the entries verified through Its Security Officials and Immedlateiy the respondent 4-I—a- thereafter took the respondent back into service until his actual date of superannuation. However, it is the case of the petitioner that since the respondent has not worked for the gap period, the respondent had not worked nor raised protest/objection of any kind, is not entitled for any salary for the said period and the action of the corporation treating the same as leave without pay cannot be found with fault. This aspect has not been considered nor appreciated by the labour Court and it has proceeded to pass an award which cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Hence, this writ petition. the respondent

#3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Ravi V. Hosmani, at the outset, submitted that there is no mistake on the part of the management in entering the date of the birth of the respondent as the same has not been pointed by the respondent within the reasonable time. He further submits that the impugned order of the Labour Court directing the Corporation to pay 7 months salary amounting to Rs.72,856/- with interest at 6% p.a. 4 from the date of the application till payment cannot be sustalnede and is liable to be set aside for the reason that the respondent had not worked for a period of four months and remainIng 3 months salary ought awarded. to have been

#4. After careful consideration of the submission of the counsel appearing for the petitioner and perusal of the impugned award of the Labour Court, Hubli, I find no error much less material irregularity In passing a just and reasonable award as there Is a mIstake on the part of the Corporation. The Corporation ought to have notified the said mistake well In time and rectIfied the mistake after issuing notice to the respondent. The mistake was not rectIfied which stood as It is till the superannuation of the respondent. When there is a mistake in entering the date of birth of the respondent, the service regIster maintained by the Corporation, the same ought to have been rectified and communicated to the respondent well In time. Delay on the part of the Corporation in not rectifying the mistake 5 is not justifiable. exchequer, ought well in time and in not considering the length of service rendered by the respondent The corporation instead of filing this petition and spending public respondent and could have settled the matter amicably. In spite of valid reasons assigned by the Labour Court in para 9 of the order impugned, the Corporation has chosen to file this writ petition. called The grounds urged by the counsel appearing for the Corporation is misconceived in nature and is liable to be rejected at the threshold. So far as the submission that the respondent is not entitled to salary for a period of 4 months is concerned, the same cannot be accepted at this stage nor it is a ground to entertain this writ petition. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition filed by the Corporation is dismissed as devoid of merits. SdL 3UDGE