Karnataka High Court
M/S.Bangalore Electricity Supply Co vs H R Rudraradhya on 8 June, 2018
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.31262 OF 2009 (L-TER)
C/ W
WRIT PETITION NO. 4081 OF 2010 (L-TER)
In W.P. No.31262/2009
Between:
M/s. Bangalore Electricity
Supply Co. (BESCOM)
K.R. Circle,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
Represented by its
General Manager.
...Petitioner
(By Smt. Surabhi Srinivas, Advocate
For Sri. Harikrishna S. Holla, Advocate)
And:
Mr. H.R. Rudraradhya,
S/o Sri Rachappa
Alias Rachuti Devaru,
Aged about 38 years,
Hoskere Village,
Hagalavadi Hobli,
Gubbi Taluk,
Tumkur District.
... Respondent
(By Sri. V.S. Naik, Advocate for Caveator/R)
-2-
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to call for the records on
the file of II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru and set
aside the award dated 2nd June, 2009 (Annexure-D)
passed in reference No.43/2007 and etc.
In W.P. No.4081/2010
Between:
Mr. H.R. Rudraradhya,
S/o Sri Rachappa
Alias Rachuti Devaru,
Aged about 39 years,
Hoskere Village,
Hagalavadi Hobli,
Gubbi Taluk,
Tumkur District.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. V.S. Naik, Advocate)
And:
The Management of
Bangalore Electric Supply Company
(BESCOM) K.R. Circle,
Bengaluru,
By its Managing Director.
... Respondent
(By Smt. Surabhi Srinivas, Advocate
For Sri. Harikrishna S. Holla, Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to call for the entire
records from the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru
pertaining to Annexure-D and grant the petitioner and
etc.
-3-
These Writ Petitions coming on for hearing, this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners in both these petitions are assailing the very same award dated 02.06.2009, passed in reference No.43/2007. The labour Court through its award has directed the employer to pay the compensation of `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) in lieu of reinstatement and other benefits. The employer is assailing the said order in W.P.No.31262/2009 in its entirety. The employee/workman is assailing the award insofar as the labour Court declining reinstatement and ordering compensation. It is in that light, both these petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are referred to as the 'employer' and the -4- 'workman' wherever the context so requires, since the parties are arrayed differently in these two petitions.
3. The workman has raised the dispute alleging that the termination is not justified and the same is contrary to the provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The case of the workman was that he was rendering services in the employer-Board from 06.02.1997 and without following the due process, he has been terminated. The employer had disputed the contention putforth by the workman and has contended that he was a workman on daily wage and had not worked for more than 240 days in a year during any earlier period and in that view it is contended that the case as put forth by the workman is not justified.
4. The Labour Court taking into consideration the rival contentions has framed five points for its consideration. Insofar as the point raised by it to come -5- to a conclusion as to whether the workman had rendered services for more than 240 days in a year and in that light whether the termination was void, has taken note of the materials available on record and has arrived at the positive conclusion in that regard. However, while granting the relief, the labour Court has taken into consideration all aspects of the matter, kept in view the legal position and has arrived at the conclusion that the appropriate relief would be to grant the compensation of `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) in lieu of reinstatement.
5. Learned counsel for the employer while assailing the award passed would contend that conclusion as reached by the Labour Court that the workman had rendered services for more than 240 days in a year is not justified and is contrary to the materials available on record. In that view, she has contended that the services of the workman admittedly were -6- engaged on daily wage basis. Work was given as and when the work was available in the Board. The conclusion reached by the Labour Court that he has worked for 240 days and in that light awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement, is not justified is the contention.
6. Learned counsel for the workman would on the other hand refer to the evidence available on record and the consideration made in that regard by the Labour Court and would contend that a consideration on facts has been made by the Labour Court. If that aspect of the matter is kept in view and the finding of fact relating to the length of services of workman is taken into consideration, the relief of reinstatement ought to have been granted or atleast appropriate compensation should have been ordered. In that view, it is contended that the award passed by the labour Court is not justified and he seeks the same be set aside -7- insofar as the portion of the relief as considered by the labour Court and direct the employer to reinstate him into services.
7. In the light of the rival contentions, I have perused the petition papers including the impugned award. From the circumstances as urged before the Labour Court, it is seen that at an earlier point, the workman had raised dispute in I.D No.100/1999. During the pendency of the same, the workman had been taken into services and therefore, the matter had been closed. Subsequent thereto, the workman has continued to work till the alleged termination. It is in that background, it requires consideration with regard to the length of services that has been performed even if the admitted services of the workman from the period he was taken into services on 06.09.1999 i.e., during the pendency of I.D No.100/1999 before the labour Court is also taken note.
-8-
8. The Labour Court in that regard while taking into consideration the evidence, has taken note of the evidence tendered by workman as W.W.1 and in that context has referred to the document at Ex.W-5 and has arrived at the conclusion that the workman had rendered services of more than 240 days in a year. While taking note of the same, the Labour Court has also taken into consideration the fact that subsequent to the earlier proceedings and the workman having been taken into the services on 06.09.1999, had worked up to 01.06.2003. It is in that light, the labour Court while referring to the document available on record has arrived at conclusion that the workman has rendered services for more than 240 days. Therefore, in that background, when the evidence available to that effect and M.W-1, who has been examined on behalf of the management has also admitted with regard to the correctness of the particulars contained in Ex-W5, the -9- conclusion as reached by the labour Court insofar as the aspect of the length of services of workman, the same is justified and does not call for interference.
9. Learned counsel for the employer no doubt would seek to rely upon the order of the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Mysore Paper Mills Limited vs. Prasanna reported in 2010-III-LLJ-209 (Kant) and would contend that when it is the case of daily wager, provisions of Section 25-F of the Act would not arise and the same cannot be considered as retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Act. On that aspect of the matter, it is to be noticed that the said decision has been rendered on the facts arising therein. In the instant case, from the facts as narrated, it is noticed that at an earlier point, dispute has been raised and I.D. No.100/1999 was pending. It is in that background the workman was taken back into services on 06.09.1999. Though it is contended on behalf of the
- 10 -
employer that he was a daily wager, from the document as relied by the Court below it is evident that he was rendering services as and when work was available and even during the period between 24.07.1999 to 01.06.2003, the workman had in fact rendered services for more than 240 days in a year. If that be the position, the said decision would not be of any assistance to the instant facts.
10. Learned counsel for the employer has also relied on the decision in the case of Rajkumar vs. Jalagaon Municipal Corporation reported in (2013) 2 SCC 751 to contend with regard to the entitlement of compensation and the nature of consideration that has been made in the facts therein. A perusal of the said judgment would indicate that in the said facts, in a situation in lieu of reinstatement, only a compensation of `10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) had been awarded. Infact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
- 11 -
enhanced the compensation. Even if this aspect of the decision is kept in view, in the instant facts, the labour Court having taken note of the fact that he was working as a Gangman earlier, work was provided as and when the work was available in the Board, it was of the opinion that the appropriate course would be to grant compensation. It is no doubt true that the labour Court has awarded compensation of `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only). Though learned counsel for the employer contends that the dispute was raised only in the year 2007 in respect of the termination made in the year 2003, learned counsel for the workman would contend that immediately after the termination, the workman was before this Court in writ petition, but was thereafter relegated to the appropriate remedy, which was prosecuted before the Labour Court and ultimately award was passed.
- 12 -
11. Be that as it may, in the circumstances, the Labour Court based on the documents available on record had recorded a finding of fact with regard to the workman having completed 240 days of services in a year but had declined reinstatement and had granted compensation. The employer instead of assailing such award ought to have implemented the award. In any event, the petitioner-employer having availed their remedy, have spent sufficient time before this Court without paying the compensation due to which the workman was denied the compensation in the year 2009. Presently, the value of that quantum of compensation is depleted due to inflation and the consequent money value.
12. Therefore, instead of ordering payment of the very same compensation, I find it appropriate that the ends of justice would be met by confirming the award passed by the labour Court insofar as the finding that
- 13 -
the workman had been terminated without following the provisions of Section 25F of the Act and insofar as the compensation awarded it is modified to hold that employee would be entitled to `1,50,000/- as compensation. The said amount shall be paid by the employer to the workman, within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that if the said amount is not paid within the time frame as noted, it shall be paid with 12% interest per annum after the expiring of the period and until the amount is paid to the employee.
In terms of the above, these petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mds/-