Karnataka High Court
M/S Bata India Limited vs Sri Gopalakrishna on 6 June, 2012
Author: K.L.Manjunath
Bench: K.L.Manjunath
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 06th DAY OF JUNE 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO
WRIT APPEAL Nos.17028-17030/2011 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
M/s.Bata India Limited,
Plot No.474, 475 & 476,
4th phase, Peenya Industrial Area,
Bangalore-560 058,
Represented by its
Vice President-Mafg. ...APPELLANT
(By Sri.B.C.Prabhakar, Adv.)
AND:
1. Sri.Gopalakrishna,
No.109/5, Anjanappa Building,
Karnataka Sangha Road,
Jalahalli post,
Bangalore-560 013.
2. Sri.H.N.Ramesh,
No.10/3, 6th A cross,
Subedar Palya, Yeshwanthpur,
Bangalore-560 058.
3. M.P.Mandanna,
Since dead by his L.Rs.
-2-
a) Ms.N.M.Kavitha
Aged about 37 years,
b) M.S.Dechamma,
D/o late Mandanna,
Both are r/at No.2054,
Ramkrishnappa building,
5th cross, No.1605, Prasanthanagar,
T.Dasarahalli, Bangalore-560 057.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. K.S.Subramanya, C/R2)
These W.As. are filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the
order passed in the Writ Petition No.24160/2005 dated
22.09.2011.
These W.As. coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, MANJUNATH J, delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 22.09.2011 in W.P.No.24160/2005.
2. The facts leading to the appeal are hereunder:-
The respondents were working as operators in the appellant's establishment. On 19.11.1998, there was a strike protesting for having entrusted the extra -3- work. The respondents were charge sheeted contending that they were responsible for the spontaneous strike and at their instigation, the other employees went on strike. Article of charges were issued in the enquiry and charges levelled against them were held to be proved. Based on the same, the respondents were dismissed from the service with effect from 20.01.2000.
3. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondents raised a dispute before the Labour court in I.D.No.97-99/2000. The Labour court after considering the evidence let in by the parties, exercising the discretion vested in it, held that the dismissal is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the respondents. Accordingly, the order of dismissal was set aside and they were directed to reinstate with 25% backwages. Order of Labour court was questioned by the appellant before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge after hearing the parties, held that the respondents are not entitled for backwages of 25% but the appellant was directed to -4- reinstate the respondents within four weeks from the date of order. Since respondent No.3 died, it was held that the L.Rs. of the said respondent are entitled for death benefits and 25% backwages from the date of dismissal till the award and further full wages from the date of award till the date of death of respondent No.3. This order is called in question in this appeal.
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant. We do not see any error committed by the learned single Judge, which calls for our interference in intra court for the following reasons:-
Admittedly, the Labour court as well as the learned single Judge have concurrently held the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the nature of charges levelled against them. Though, the Labour court has ordered to pay backwages of 25%, the learned single Judge has set aside the same and directed the appellant to reinstate the respondents 1 and 2 without backwages into service. The order of learned single Judge has not been complied with by the appellant even though there is no order of stay. -5-
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that justice would be met if the appellant is directed to reinstate respondents 1 and 2 within two weeks from today and payment to be payable to the L.Rs. of 3rd respondent as ordered by the learned single Judge.
6. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of. A direction is issued to the appellant to reinstate the respondents 1 and 2 within two weeks from today and shall settle the claims to the L.R.s of 3rd respondent as ordered by the learned single Judge within six weeks from today, failing which, the order of learned single Judge stands confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Srl.