Principal v. Husainbasha, 35 yrs
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Petition is allowed in part
Provisions considered
Judgment
(By Sri N M Hansi, Adv.) And: 1 2 Husainbasha, 35 yrs S/o Abdulkhadasab Soudagar R/o Tathi Sedaji Chawl Kaladagi Road, Bagalkot C/o S M Joshi, Advocate Godbholemala, Bijapur Director (Adm) Indl. & Training Department Dairy Circle, Near NIMHANS Hospital Bannerghatta Road, Hosur Road Bangalore 2 Respondents 3 Tahsildar, Bagalkot Adminstrator of Almeezaan Indl. Training Centre, Bagalkot (By Sri Dinesh M Kulkarni, Adv. for R1; Smt Megha C Kolekar, GP for R2-3) The Petition Constitution praying to quash the award dated 26.3.2010 in KID 26/1998 by the Labour Court, Bijapur. is filed under Art. 226/227 of The Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court, Bijapur in KID 26/1998 on 26.3.2010 is before this Court. Dispute has been raised by the respondent alleging dismissal/termination of his service by way of oral termination on 1.12.1997. The dispute was resolved by the Labour Court, Bijapur. While passing an order of reinstatement, it is held that petitioner be reinstated to the post of Attender, however, without back wages. The order of reinstatement as Attender is under challenge before this Court by the Management. 3 Heard the counsel representing the parties. According to the respondent, he was appointed as an Attender on 1.4.1995 and he was orally removed from service on 1.10.1997. The same has been denied by the management. According the management, respondent himself has voluntarily left the institution and raised a dispute as if he had been removed from service. Accordingly it is contended by the Management that initially, the respondent along with one more person, was appointed as per the resolution dated
14.8.1995 as Chowkidar and not as Attender. However, the contention of the respondent is, though he had been appointed as Chowkidar, he was discharging the duty as a Lab Attender and he wasworking in the Laboratory. However, the petitioner has not indicated the name of the respondent fraudulently. As could be seen from annexure D – resolution dated
Operative part
14.8.1995, within a span of two years, respondent has opted out to attend the duty. Disbelieving the version of the management, 4 Tribunal opined that the respondent was working as an Attender. Annexure D itself depicts that respondent was appointed as a Chowkidar. Might be he must have been entrusted with the work of Attender. However, after he has left the services, he has raised a dispute. As a matter of fact finding, Tribunal held that the respondent was working as a Lab Attender. The respondent has taken a stand that to accommodate one Munnirahamad hasansab Immannavar, his name has been deleted from the list. As such, he refused to work as a Chowkidar. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that respondent was working as a Practical/Laboratory Attender without looking into the Resolution which clearly shows that this respondent along with one more person was appointed as Chowkidar. Just because it is mentioned as Practical Attender, it does not necessarily mean that he was working as an Attender. 5 In that view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal that respondent was working as a Practical Attender and he should be reinstated as Attender, cannot be accepted. However, as a matter of fact finding, Tribunal has opined that respondent has been orally terminated by the petitioner management. It appears, the respondent was attending to work as an Attender. He could not resume duty and fought for the post as such, he remained absent. Though the order of reinstatement is appropriate, but he has to be reinstated as Chowkidar with continuity of service, however, without back wages. Continuity of service is only for the purpose of calculation of terminal benefits. The respondent be taken on duty within a month. Petition is allowed in part. An Sd/- Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is allowed in part
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.