Karnataka High Court
Anil Kumar S/O Chintamani Kittur vs M/S Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd on 28 October, 2009
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF' OCTOBER 2009'
PRESENT " A' " A
THE I--ION'BLE MR JUSTICE v.G.sAEHA_Eé--T if-A *' A'
AND
THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE s.r§Il.sAT&'ANARA'{ATeAV " _ k
Writ Appeal No. 3218 of2'ooS.(_1;;TER; ~, «. "
Between:
Sri Anilkurnar V '
S / 0 Chintamani Kittur
Age about 41 years «
R/a House No.286.2/B _ A
Mahaveer One Jatin Gallij _, ~ :
Belgaum Distri<;t'g _ _ ' .. Appellant
{By Sri l'Tdar'1jlunathlfiitlljelegjgJldxroeate for Sri S.V.Desai 85 Sri
Roopnath' Naik, Ad.}roC.ates~}.,,___ " *
And: , .,
ll ' My' Klarnaetaka Neefavari Nigarn Ltd.
. Regd, Of1"1Ce"at 431 Floor
Cot'fee"'Boa1*d .E:5:;.2ilcling No. 1
~. Dr, «B bedkar Veedhi
}£3ar1gal.0.re' =7 560 001
Re';wresen'Le.d by its
A ' Com"par':;y Secretary
,'I'he_« Government of Karnataka
Department of Irrigation
%M.S.Bui1ding, Bangalore
-"By its Secretary .. Respondents
" (By Sri N.lVI.Hansi, Advocate for R-1 and Sri K.I3.Adhyapak., Add}. Govt. Advocate for R-2} This writ appeal is filed under Sec.4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in..._the writ petition l\%o.29334/2001 dt. 21.06.2005 and etc. This appeal coming on for hearing before day, Sabhahit, J ., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT 4 This appeal by the respond€:__I1tt--_pAin ».petiLio'nit' No.29334 of 2001 is filed being azégfgnevetgi by the :'orderttdatted 21.06.2005, wherein the .---le.arne.d'"Single"dudge«of-this Court held that application wastttfiiitghd. petitioner after six years from the of 'anc:':.itt'herefore, it was barred by tirne of theltvdecision in KSRTC Vs. KHALEEh ti*tXi%II\w1:l':s'.'v-_]j)_p in .Ii;ié 2002 KAR 3827 and wherefore'«.i;h'e tappli'e.at_ion._:it'could not be maintained and accordingly altlov5}ed.yt.hetivritttpetition and quashed the award pass'o§i..,py..Atr1veA. Labtotur"'Ctourt impugned in the writ petition "to the respondent in the writ petition, appellant here.i_n}: to raise an industrial dispute in accordance 'with law.
' .. The respondents herein filed writ petition No.29334 being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour '] =C.ourt, Hubli in KID No. 1034 of 1993 (old 1310.619 of 1988) "contending that the award passed by the Labour Court could \.a5s» not be sustained as the application was filed beyond the period of limitation. It was contended that appellant was working as a Typist on daily wage 25.11.1986 and his services were terminated"by'~--oral_:'order'-«T without assigning any reason. An applicat'ion«_und--e__r 'Section 10(iv--a) of the Industrial I_)isputesV._ Actgb'..".{Kta'rnatal{ae if amendment Act of 1957) was that he had worked for more *than'.e'2'-40. a calendar year and the Labour Court by allowing the application and, termination and directing s_reyspo11dent--appellant herein withoutfl baCl%¥vc9agesinland:V.with_ continuity of service. The petition 'resisted tVhe_Tres'pondents. The learned Single Judge by order sdatehd .b6.2005 held that application filed petitioner iifideri Section 10(iv--a) in the year 1993 order of termination dated 3011.198'? was bari'eid by.'t1:rrte:: and therefore, the award passed by the 'Lab0ur"Cot1rt could not be sustained and quashed the same fg'11.d:ii.passed the impugned order reserving liberty to the appellant to raise an industrial dispute in accordance with law. Thereafter, review petition was filed before the learned Single Judge and the review petition i\Eo.498 of 2005 was dismissed on 03.08.2005' Being aggrieved by the order of the \.)2 learned Single Judge, this appeal is filed by the respondent in the Writ petition contending that the applicatiorijfiled under Section lO(iv--a) of the Industrial Disputes Act barred by time.
3. The services of the appellant vveie effect from 30.11.1987 and the apiplipcation Sec-tionlbg 10(iv--a) before the Labour Coi;itr:t"iwas filed"oi:i? and the same was nurr"il:>ered.i'ias"i{ljDllgll'No.6l9lof 1988 and after the establishment Court at Hubli the saici..No;;e1:9e«r ii9'8Sjv.wes"§tii_imbered as KID No.103:%i of --.vv'rierefore, the application was not barred time of Division Bench decision of this Court in thekrase Vs. ABDUL AZEEZ reported in 'iv1La'¢°oo.+tv. KAR 27e'i""'wherein it is held that in View of the "the provisions of Section 10(iv--a) any terrathiinatiflrivvithin six months from the date of lgcommencement of the Act could be filed within six months 1"rorri"'~the date of the amendment and coming into force i.e., 1988 ie, upto 07.10.1988 and the learned counsel for 8 the respondent argued in support of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In order to ascertain the veracity of the submission of the learned counsei appearing for the 'v°> pellant. We have secured the original records frorri the Labour Court which clearly substantiates the contejntiio-n_uo_f the learned counsel appearing for the appell-anti" . scrutiny of the Labour Court records»Vwould"s'n'oi§§;». ptliat*the_i petition was filed before the Labour C'oti::ti'1.1ndler 10(iv--a) of the Act on 30.09.l_988 i.el.',-._ Service of the appellant was and amendment Act came iri--tolffo'rcie petition was filed on 30.09: from the date of coming 'the: "before 07.10.1988 as 1391" the Court and the same had of 1988. However, after the estab1ishmeiit_iofftl1§~.:i§idditi0nal Labour Court at Hubli the said K115 was numbered as KlD No.1034 '8 V' "of iééstever1eeiehg"the fact that the petition had been filed ._hi _ll9ll88;_"itselif' ewithin the time prescribed as per the Division Bench andwl'1erefore in View of the Division Bench decision *.,of this" Court teferred to above, it is clear that the order by the learned Single Judge that the application filed before the Labour Court was barred by time and could not be sustained is liable to be set aside. Since the learned Single Judge has not gone into the merits of the order passed by the Labour Court, it is proper that the matter is 'vi;
remitted to the learned Single Judge for consideration of the writ petition on merits in accordance with law. Accordingly, We pass the following order:
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The order passed by writ petition No.29s34 of 200-3. datedc.".i34;'06.2oO'5 is set aside and thie"t's.\VVi§iiz'r'it petiti.o_n'*i$.= restored to the file of the~.1.t-;-artteti" Si-ngledudge iaindiiiremitted to the learned disposal in acco:*d_ance with 'on'*the rnefrits of the case.
i' Pnag/