Karnataka High Court
Ngef (Hubli) Ltd, vs S.N. Rayangoudar on 11 July, 2017
Bench: A.S.Bopanna, H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
AND
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY
WRIT APPEAL NO.100646/2016 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
NGEF (HUBLI) LIMITED,
P.B.ROAD, RAYAPUR, DHARWAD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.N.M.HANSI, ADV.)
AND:
1. S.N.RAYANGOUDAR S/O NAGANAGOUDA,
AGE: 55 YEARS, C/O: NGEF EXPLOYEES
ASSOCIATTION, DHARWAD.
2. THE SECRETARY,
COMMERCIAL AND INDISTRIAL CENTRE,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAVI HEGDE, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI.RAVI HOSAMANI, AGA, FOR R2)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE CONFIRMING THE AWARD OF THE
LABOUR COURT IN REFERENCE NO.83/2000 IN
W.P.NO.64703/2012 (L) DATED 12.02.2016.
:2:
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, A.S.BOPANNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant is before this Court assailing the order dated 12.02.2016 passed in W.P.No.64703/2012. By the said order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and upheld the award dated 25.02.2012 passed by the Principal Labour Court in Reference No.83/2000.
2. The respondent No.1 herein was working as a helper in the appellant company from the year 1987. At the first instance, his services were terminated in the year 1988, which was assailed by him before the Labour Court in KID No.1233/1988. The Labour Court having set aside the termination, through its award dated 24.07.1996, had directed reinstatement into services with full backwages. The said award has attained finality and the respondent No.1 being reinstated had continued to work in that position. At that stage, the respondent :3: No.1 had sought regularization of his services by raising a dispute. The Labour Court having considered the rival contentions, through its award dated 25.02.2012 in Reference No.83/2000, has accepted the reference and directed that the respondent No.1 be regularized into the services with effect from 25.04.2000. The appellant herein claiming to be aggrieved by the said award was before learned Single Judge in W.P.No.64703/2012. The learned Single Judge, as already indicated above, has upheld the award passed by the Labour Court.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the award passed by the Labour Court as also the order passed by the learned Single Judge, would contend that the regularization as ordered is contrary to the legal position as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi reported in 2006 LawSuit (SC) 296. In that view, :4: it is contended that the reinstatement in the nature as ordered is not justified.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents would however seek to sustain the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
5. At the outset, a perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court would indicate that the reconsideration was made by it in terms of the remand made from this Court on 07.12.2011 in W.P.No.13523/2007. In order to arrive at a conclusion that the regularization is to be ordered, the Labour Court has referred to the evidence adduced on behalf of respondent No.1 through WW.1 and WW.2 and also taken note of the documents at Exs.W.1 to W.21. The evidence on behalf of the management through MW.1 and MW.2 as also the documents at Exs.M.1 to M.15 was also taken into consideration. Though, a detailed reference is made to the oral as well as the documentary :5: evidence, admittedly, it is a case which emanates out of the award passed in KID No.1233/1988. As the reinstatement at the earlier instance was made through the said award passed by the Labour Court, the right as claimed by the respondent No.1 herein for regularization has arisen.
6. Therefore, to that extent, since the Labour Court has taken into consideration the evidence available on record and has arrived at its conclusion on the factual aspects, no reconsideration in any event would arise in a proceedings under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. The only issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether even in that circumstance, the relief is to be denied to the respondent No.1. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the relief of reinstatement would not be available even in cases arising under the Industrial Disputes Act. in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in :6: the case of Umadevi. To that extent the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P.Power Corporation Limited and Another v/s Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and Others reported in 2007 II CLR 514, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court with reference to the judgment in the case of Umadevi has indicated that the observations therein would be applicable even to the industrial adjudication. To that extent, in any event, there can be no quarrel whatsoever with regard to the legal position enunciated. However, what requires consideration in the instant case is that, in a circumstance, where the respondent No.1 was reinstated through an earlier order has therefore worked for a period of 13 years without any break. Hence, the regularization as ordered by the Labour Court in the present circumstance is justified or not is the issue. :7:
7. Even on that aspect of the matter, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, U.P. v/s Akhilesh Kumar Khare and Another reported in 2015-IV-LLJ- 257 (SC). Having perused the said judgment, we find that, in the said facts arising therein, no doubt the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the earlier judgment in the case of Umadevi and has declined relief to the respondents therein, which had been granted by the Labour Court as well as the High Court. However, the said decision is in a circumstance where the very appointment of daily wagers had been made contrary to the instructions of the Vice-Chancellor and further the workman concerned had only worked on casual basis for about 1½ years and that too not against a sanctioned post. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to arrive at its conclusion had taken note of the decision in the case of Umadevi and it also kept in view the exception as :8: carved out in para 53 of the said judgment and was of the opinion that the workman concerned do not fall even under the said exception.
8. Contrary to the said position, in the instant case as already noticed, at the first instance the respondent No.1 had been terminated without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, contending that respondent No.1 was appointed on a casual basis. In view of violation of the provisions of law, the reinstatement had been ordered. Thereafter, the workman has continued in the same position for 13 years. The consideration as presently made is not merely on the circumstance that the regularization is to be granted but the consideration as made by the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge was also to take note of the unfair labour practice practiced by the appellant in appointing a workman on casual basis and continuing him for such a long period though work was :9: available. It is in that circumstance the learned Single Judge after referring to the factual situation in the matter has also taken note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat v/s Secretary, Municipal Employees Union and Others reported in 2015 AIR SCW 2240. The said decision is rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by keeping in view the case relating to Umadevi and yet another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Durgapur Casual Workers Union v/s Food Corporation of India reported in [(2014) 13 Scale 644].
9. Therefore, in such circumstance when the learned Single Judge has referred to a later decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which had also referred to the case of Umadevi and had arrived at a conclusion, in the circumstance where the employer had resorted to such an unfair labour practice, the continuation on : 10 : casual basis being impermissible, in the instant case, though it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the respondent No.1 was not appointed against sanctioned post, the very fact that after the earlier reinstatement he has continued to discharge his duties regularly for a period of 13 years, would indicate that such work was available to be discharged but a regular appointment had not been resorted to by the appellant.
10. Therefore, in these circumstances when the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge has not only kept in view the factual aspects of the matter, but also the legal position in view and has arrived at a conclusion, we see no reasons to interfere either with the award passed by the Labour Court or the order passed by the learned Single Judge in an intra court appeal of the present nature.
11. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit stands disposed of.
: 11 :
12. In view of our conclusion above, the application seeking stay also does not merit consideration. I.A.No.2/2016 disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Sh