Karnataka High Court
The Management Of Karnataka State Road ... vs K. Kempaiah on 31 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: ILR2000KAR4987, 2001(1)KARLJ292
ORDER
1. The writ petition is taken up with consent of parties. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is the management of the KSRTC challenges the order of grant of interim relief at Annexure-C. Annexure-C is the order granting interim relief to the respondent-workman.
3. In this case, the workman was dismissed from service on alleged misconduct on 16-11-1993. The claim statement was filed by the workman under Section 10(4-A) on 21-3-1994. The application for interim relief was subsequently filed on 6-1-1996. The preliminary issue on domestic enquiry was passed on 4-6-1999. The Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. In these circumstances, the Labour Court granted interim relief from the date of application, namely, from 6-1-1996.
4. The learned Counsel for the management submitted that it is usual to grant interim relief only after a decision has been rendered on the domestic enquiry and also submitted that if any relief is to be granted to the workman, it should be from the date when the domestic enquiry was disposed of against the management.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondent-workman relied on an unreported judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 22723 of 1989 dated 20th March, 1990. This very issue was resolved by this Court. The Court held that it would be open to the Labour Court to grant interim relief from the date of application even if the application is made prior to the disposal of the matter on domestic enquiry. In other words, this Court has held that if the domestic enquiry is held to be not fair and proper, it would be open to the Labour Court to grant interim relief from the date of application even if the application is made prior to the adjudication on domestic enquiry. This view of the learned Single Judge was affirmed in Writ Appeal No. 693 of 1990, dated 11th of April, 1990. Accordingly, there is little for me to do, except to follow the Division Bench judgment of this Court. However, the learned Counsel for the workman very graciously and fairly submitted that there was no Presiding Officer from September 1996 to April 1998. In these circumstances, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for workman that he would forego interim relief for that period.
6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the management shall pay interim relief from the date of application till the dispute is disposed of. However, interim relief for the period from September 1996 to April 1998 shall be excluded since there was no Presiding Officer on a concession made by the workman, If in the meanwhile, while the dispute is pending, the management wishes to extract work from the workman, then of course, the question of interim relief will not arise since he will get wages from the date the work is extracted, Time granted for payment of arrears of interim relief after deducting the period from September 1996 to April 1998 shall be three months from the date of receipt of this order.
It is also made clear that the interim relief shall be paid before tenth of each calendar month if work is not extracted pending dispute.
The Labour Court is requested to dispose of the dispute as expeditiously as possible.