Karnataka High Court
K S Manjunatha S/O Seebi Rangaiah vs The Divisional Controller on 8 March, 2018
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.6839/2010 (LK)
BETWEEN:
K. S. MANJUNATHA,
S/O SEEBI RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O YELLAPURA, ARKERE POST,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DIST. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
KSRTC., TUMKUR DIVISION,
TUMKUR 572 101. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H. R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD PASSED
BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN I.D.
NO.214/06 DTD 27.11.09 VIDE ANEXURE-B TO THIS
WRIT PETITION AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO
REFIX THE PAY SCALE, SENIORITY, PROMOTION, ETC.,
OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETION
OF 180 DAYS OF SERVICE I.E. FROM 06.06.1992 AND
PAY HIM ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FROM THE
DATE OF INITIAL APPOINTMENT TILL THE DATE OF
2
REFIXATION UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the records.
2. The Government of Karnataka has made a reference vide order No. ID 1049 IDM 2006 dated 17.10.2006 to the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru ((hereinafter referred to as the 'Labour Court'), wherein one Sri. K.S. Manjunath, the conductor in KSRTC & BMTC was the first party and the Divisional Controller, KSRTC Tumakuru Division was the second party. The Industrial Tribunal has adjudicated the said Reference in Industrial Dispute No.214/2006 and rejected the same.
3. The claim of the First Party viz., the workman K.S. Manjunath is that, he was selected and appointed as 'Badli Conductor' by the Second Party Corporation with effect from 06.06.1992 and he was brought as a Trainee Conductor with effect from 3 28.07.1997 and the period of probation was for two years. He further submits that, his services have been brought on probation with effect from 05.02.2000 and his services have been confirmed with effect from 05.02.2000 and the seniority and other allowances of the said workman have been fixed with effect from 05.02.2000 not from 06.06.1992, on which date he was appointed as a Badli Conductor.
4. The reference taken on a question, whether the First Party-Workman-KS. Manjunath is justified in raising a dispute after lapse of six years regarding the order dated 05.02.2000 issued by the Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Tumakuru Division, fixing the seniority and other benefits of the workman wef. 05.02.2000, instead of 06.06.1992.
5. In view of the said claim, the question before the Tribunal was, whether the Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Tumakuru Division, is justified in fixing the seniority, etc, of the First Party-Workman wef. 05.02.2000 instead of 06.06.1992, on which date he was appointed as a Badli Conductor.
4
6. It is the case of the Second Party before the Labour Court that , the First Party was appointed on temporary basis as 'Badli Conductor' and he worked during the split periods i.e., from 06.02.1992 to 20.02.1992, 25.02.1992 to 10.03.1992, 06.06.1992 to 05.07.1992 and for two days from 30.07.1992 and thereafter, he was relieved from services on 05.07.1992. Further, by Notification No.1/1997, the First Party was appointed on 05.02.2000 pursuant to his application and he was initially brought on probation for a period of two years and thereafter on 11.02.2002, his service was confirmed and accordingly, his seniority and other allowances have been fixed with effect from 05.02.2000, and the same is in accordance with law; Moreover, the First party never worked continuously for a period of 180 days prior to 05.02.2000 and hence, there is no justification in First Party seeking fixation of seniority and time-scale with effect from a period earlier to 05.02.2000; The Truce Agreement dated 17.02.1962 is not applicable to the First party; the raising of dispute 5 is not in time and hence, the reference is liable to be rejected.
7. In support of the contention of the First Party, he himself was examined as WW.1 and he has produced and relied upon 13 documents as Exs.W.1 to W.13. In support of the contention of the Second Party-Corporation, the management has produced and relied upon 6 documents viz., Exs. M.1 to M.7 and it examined one Mr. Dakshina Murthy as MW.1.
8. Perused the above documents produced by both sides. The documents- Exs. WW.1 to WW.3 are, Order of appointment, Order of Probation and Order of Confirmation of the First Party; W.4 & W.5 are the application of the First Party for regularization and also the endorsement of the second party; Ex.W.8 is the Truce Agreement; Ex.W.6 is the Pass Book and it does not show continuous employment of the First Party for 210 days as alleged; Ex.W.7 is the carbon copy of representation dated 07.08.1998, wherein the workmen themselves have admitted that they were on temporary employment and that their services may be 6 regularized.; Exs. W.13 is the Extracts of Attendance Register from August 1997 to August 1999.
9. The contention of the Second Party on the basis of the above documents produced by the First Party itself is that, the First Party-Workman is not entitled for the reliefs sought for, as he cannot fall back and contend that he should have been appointed in a permanent post from some previous date and he is entitled for the benefits as such, without the proof of exact vacancies available on that date.
10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and on perusal of the materials available on record, I am of the opinion that the petition claiming said relief is filed by the workman after lapse of six years from the date of his regular appointment. Further, Ex.W2 is the order dated 05.02.2000 putting the First Party-Workman on training for a period of two years, as he was in select list and his services have been confirmed vide order dated 03.02.2007 (Ex.M.7) with retrospective effect from 11.02.2002. Therefore, from the above documents it is clear that, in the year 1992 7 the First Party was appointed for some short period and such appointment was on a temporary basis. Moreover the First Party has failed to explain the source of these documents. When such being the case, the service register extracts produced to establish that the workman has rendered services prior to notification are in no way helpful to the petitioner-workman. Though Exs. W.11 & W.12 are produced to show his service during some particular period prior to notification, they are unauthenticated as they do not bear seal and signature of the authorized officers of the II Party- Management. At least the workman could have examined the persons who have issued the said documents or he should have stated the source of the same. Otherwise, if Ex.W.11 and W.12 are the relevant documents, he should have made an application for a direction to the Second Party to produce the originals. In the absence of such efforts, though he makes prayer to remand this matter for re-examination of W.11 and W.12, I do not find any good reason to do so. Further, the documents produced by the Second Party- Management show that, Ex.M1 is the appointment order 8 for the limited period viz., 06.02.1992 to 20.02.1992 on daily wages. Ex.M.2 is another Temporary Order dated 26.05.1992 for 30 days from 06.06.1992 to 05.07.1992. Ex.M3 is an order dated 03.07.1992 is a temporary period of 29 days concerning 49 workmen posting them to various depots in the division.Ex.M.4 is an affidavit of the First Party-Workman made in pursuance of Notification No.2716 dated 12.09.1997 under which he was selected and asked to go for training for two years. Ex.M.5 is an Indemnity Bond of the workman with the surety in favour of KSRTC dated 26.09.1997 to abide by the terms and conditions of the training for two years. Ex.M.7 is the confirmation order dated 03.02.2007 with retrospective effect from 11.02.2002. Therefore, from the above documents it is clear that, in the year 1992, the First Party was appointed for some short period on temporary basis. Therefore, the Labour Court has rightly rejected the reference.
11. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the order dated 9 04.08.2008 in Industrial Dispute No.214/2006 passed by the Labour Court is sound and proper and it does not call for interference by this court. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*