Adichunchanagiri Hospital And vs Sri C Lingappa on 13 March, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Adichunchanagiri Hospital And vs Sri C Lingappa on 13 March, 2012

Bench: Aravind Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATA£§A
AT BANGALORE  '

DATED THIS THE 13% DAY 01? Bx1ARCH_,;"2t'3"..1V'21..j:  ;_. A' 

BEFORE

THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUS'1'ICE:    K V'

WRIT PETITION NC).<i"-1  2'ii:.1_v"1..%i;'f:;'~

BETWEEN:

ADICHUNCHANAGIRI H0sP_1'mL ._

AND RESEARCH cI:r-;vrRE:"& ' . 
ADICHUNCHANAGIRIVA -   ;   .A %
INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL E3CIENCES~,. f~. 
B G NAGAR 571 448; --  "  ' "
NAGAN1ANaA.LA TALUK .. . ._
MANDYA ;:)1s%;*' .E_C'1'.7R}:3-1? BY ijq V
ITS MEDIQAI, SU;PERi1~«I1*BN}:>EN"§--
DR 55 RFASEQJTH KLTNLNR'    PELTITIQNER

(BY SRI--.__ADV. FGR S N MURTHY
As3Qc:;A'§r,s,~;;m\;*Q.<:;AiI'Es}

AND: _

 = ,1    E§N§}XPP5:...« -

V'  M"

«_ S_E€},SRE"{§H1KE§%E{,2"??E Gama
 " g:.;Q:E§';:;3§3:--J':' $2 YEARS}
 2~§:;:,§<«%g;~:T.::- .3;%é@3'::
. :<;:2RGe;:%jm;' HQBLE
"'<«?>£E%§j@'BY5é T§~*aLUK ANB 2:33:

T '§E*:;Ei:-- SECRETARE' "59
' "'i}G'v'EREKI§§§EN'F cs? %§z%R:"£A"§,%;E{A
*  ?_;g%B@U:~'< 3EPA§.'mg:xﬁ:
'wags SQUSHA
33 A§xrEB§B£'§_£aR VERSE:
a.A§s§é;0RE 5&9 $23};  RE$Ps:>:x§BE:=.2?$

{SE5 SE? S E; E'»'§§}E{LE§§%_.?\EE*§E§E~'":}A3 ,%;§'€. FCIE
SE.§v§UE{Eiéj7¥'f*€Zi§P§; 5: z%SE'?S, ;%$'1./C E783? RE
SR%,§A{.}§;§EE1«SH §%U?*§§A§¢%Cgi ﬁgiléé) FQEE $32}



THIS WP. ES FILED NNDER ARTECLES 22:5 sxTN::{"22?
as THE CQNST£"£'{3TIOE\E 03 TNDTA PRAYENS '1'O--«_Q-fj;?xSE%i

GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 1909,2001 :é,§:s$I:::>__jj gay' 
SECOND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE1 D AND -QUASH N-T2113: " .

AWARD DATED 28¢10t2()1D IN RE3F:NO.253--;'2'OQ:1.. >14AssE:I3_' ' BY THE LABOUR COURT, MYSOREAT AEINIZXLJRERX V * THIS WRIT PETITION COMINC;§'1§)N. TOR »PR.I§L.IMIN:ARﬁ"' HEARING IN GROUP B THIS NAT, THE: CC=1}Rf§f.§fAS§3ED THE FOLLOWING:

T0RDﬁN_f Petitioner .~.> in question award C6urt, 'Mysore, in RefereT1c§:_ 0.20 10 whereunder, Referei:';1'ce*. in part with a direction is £113 manégeiizgni_t«5..:*§i1§;state The Tegpandenﬁworkxnan '_ axJiT';:~'T,i3Q*§fz€:. Vbaskariagggs {Tam The dais sf 3:333. Temavai ti}? ~ ' '£1,536 '*ﬁ8§€,§ C§§.€ iﬁ$§3;€€II}€};1te

2.," Nféegrsi STT Somashekarg Eeaynsﬁ Csuzzseé V. , "a;t2p;€ar§:Tg fa: RENT §!§§3:§'1f,h§ égseaiaigs fer p€:§'7:§.::::Ter "';2:ié"STi 8&8. §§ui§E«:a:ma§2pa,. §€'c";IE'fZ%;€§ 2612:1331 appearing '"fé:' §'€S:8€*I}%'}i€E?C{ 15%,: aiiﬁ Sr}: ajagadasséz EV§u:1§.a:ag§, §sa:Tiz:§ ﬁﬁéi, §§2«'f{i§'§"iE§E€E3?i §§.éz~;€ar:€ T13: Tfs'f:f-::§%€3:1§§:1%:

E lg-

Nolzl Perueeé ihe impugneﬁ award as also the pleadings and evidence.

3. Sri Somashelsiaix learned Counsel "

petitioner would contend 1:hat'""Refereneeiég erroneous since a stale claim «.

otherwise, the claim has beei:i1:'*21isecﬁ E3y_V_ olfter V a period of nine §?eafS alleged termination anclas belated claim having beefy" ragga: .\lQl5iIlulated by the Labour ' in favour of that it is a case of abazidoiimjjelaet ihe responder}: and on a;eoo§;:1*::l..of fe'e§o":*lde:9}.: mot reporting to Clutyl he did not ,ca:;::m:e¢ i::"~:he service of ihe petiiéenerwmanagemem "52::'ﬁ._:hVe:*'e-.l%_s'gézillfzzl 8}:38.:1§€}l"il')f"§€I}'§: 33$ 33 eziehf §'e§:1:ea':

of :é%'o:3<:'Adé:éls moi arise age; Cﬁﬁiﬁﬁdﬁ '$38.: §l"§."§ESl0I1S of li.:e».,S%,>%::i:§o:ﬁV";2E{e:;§ of the laéustrial ﬁisgizéee Aei, 194%? is aoi gfgiﬁééoied and ii iioes not eaiisfy ihe requiremené of V Wﬁeeiiozl 25?' ofihe lnéézsieial Elsgézies 50$, Se eozzienﬁs ihei §L§b02:§' €;e:;,r5: erzed 21:": ﬁe": eosaeiﬁeeirzg {he {me eogziee of Exﬁvlg ané; §'%§% El3.i"EE§l}' aoqzziiemoe fall age? iiiltle giieizdancs rsgistsr produceci as ﬁmnaxures B anﬁ C in this §€tiiiOI} which according to him Wsulé ge ﬁg that there was unauthorised absence Labour Court ought ta have accepted "

V€1'SiO1'1. He would further c0r1tef1.d that:'dﬁrin.g"-theiyeasA 2000, there was labaur unr-§§s't.._Vg.3n people have been remogfed the Labeur Ceurt and Tef been re» employed by tlfge as per the terms and upon and as such, from justice oriented paint a, :'1§l ":1 cri cf the Labour Court.

He xsz9uid:L'---..VSu'b:'::it ._ §:E1¢{: peiitioner~man,age:neni is ._V;;}r€;;%ga'i:*egf1_L .t:>v%_ raizféiaéeihe raspendent 31% pay him 316 ;éu:":§€:2j€':a{é;gé3ja':% an daisy whiah is paid :9 3. §Vai'§ '$93: if 331$ prays fer a3;aza:*£i 3? the Labau?

"Qe::;§: "2:;§%1~;:g madéfisd aaaﬁrdézzgéy. ﬁe '2?"§G'a3:§i'§ gubmié :'%¥€z: zariiéz yagard :0 €§E}'£i§?:2'i1;§'i}? Q? sszmise 2 _:f§_s§:pe::ﬁe:1§z~w@§%::::a:: mi} be exiezzdsé thé same fa}: "$13 Vpgzgosss Q? campzgiiﬁg €36 Eeymiiggi §€::6§:ii::3 amé 3.8 égfwﬂ 5 E gush E16 submits "Eha: awaré. 9? 'ans Labom' Ccmri be be':

$8': aside a:':<:¥;'01* be madifiscl

4. In support of his submissions, V' upon the following judgments:

(1) 2000 I LLJ 561 [Neduﬁg>;c 1'i.V_f3ani{V_-liiid..2 &m>.%%% Madhavankutty & ofiaéfs.

(21 2002 11 LLJ { txI'{§:§t1§j'3xf§:%::M: Ka:¥:1:u;aka Road Transport CorpQ'r§1_tiL:5hV; Salami (3) (1998) SCEEA ['St;1{§é"'0f.V.fHaryana VS! Om Pfaka &";Am..:§ihéf1' (2:4) 143 {Reserve Bank of India 8»:

" {}f:13+sfs"*V;S;;.AVCﬁg._Sé}1asra::a:11a:: &: Others} $2. .§'§%'«-..:er:¥i§a, Sri $93 Mzﬁikannapga, iearﬁed .e3S"7::;:?2$-327:' '_"ap;:%;éé;§§r:g ff)? ?€§pe:1é€§:i~*aA?or§<:r::an Wesgié $i§§:}}.€.i?%V: 'E§§'§ aaggarﬁ pasgaﬁ by '$336 Labsur" {hurt 3:15. ' éa;':::'€:2é§; $3139: ;§{:{>p€ Sf ';:f":§'{$§'§€E'€EEC§3 by tisis C€}{;§I'i ﬁeéng Efimiieég ihis fsazzré shmﬁd 'as éauiizsug in §'e«a:{a:":§§1ing grid ieuevaiuaiigg 333$ €V§d€§§£€€ iéaizésred; §y iéiﬁ paréies bﬁfﬁfﬁ ths iabam" iiguyé iiﬁﬁ §E?%"f": Q§"i€f'\§.?'iS€ GEE. 3&3 gfrozmsi. 9%' §€}8.},,«»ﬁ ysfsrfsnse €:E%;:E§E£i}§ 'B5 i§"'§fi>§VIE £322: zaera gm .»*"'W éi 3 gartiétuiaziy when peiitiozlspmanagemené has appearsd in the instant case filed statement sf Ob}€§2f§.§{5£1S§ produced documants in support: of its case: a:_1§7a':é there being :10 violation of principlga of :.1:5:'i,x:--:f;f:i»1p it cannot be construed or termed 2:_»;:3T..:~3'ta1e_ would alse contend that thefgﬁ'-~§§fasV--'i'1.r)ﬁ in the counter statemcgrﬁt Iﬁi made by ihs management and as such, he cor1f§€::';:§1.S__ "Court is just and propel; 'fQv:;Winterference. He would merits, management ::0nten;:'i€;d" abanzionmemi Qf service by the 'éffsct fram 243.3992. Eﬁaving " " «..pr8:i_éie::€_{£ 'E2716 ai:§é::£L-aiiice E"€§i$§€1€" and acguiiargcg :0}: far rimihing @F€V€1'1'E€§ the managemezzt iig §?£A>€'§.4i.AC€.V. sama dacuments as uncieriaken 'bf; {E36 K "~.__ *%&?iiI:€E§S__§si'$€§ £335 £336 gaégéqgagé pesﬁsd &E§$9 i'i33'§}§§§_§ xzﬂrzieh weulti hangs §'3Ef"Q'%Eg?'E'i éégiaé ea': 33% €Q§}_§§1"i§§.%§§ 2 ..{':§ %@'?:h ;;;a:"{§%$ aaé szgbméég 'that 3:': 358533: 9% E381'? praéacﬁgzi sf Ehés-3% rsisvazaé §9$1:m€:r:is, Labimr Semi:

E'%§§Ti'{}::»,? {"§§"é§§2?'§§ azévsrga 21; fafaﬁité 'is 3:?3*i2:e 21*: 3, mm eeneiueien éihai ihere wee he willful ebendeznment and there has been vie:>1ati0n ef SeeO:i0n Zioo) Vei".._:ihe Industrial Dieputes Act, and non e0mp1iance__§if"S5eef:ie::3 _ 25E' of the industrial Disputes an_r:1"'ae:f_uS:1ieh'--Ahei é submits that order of the Lab0ur:'£§01:;;r';.. interference at the hands of 'ihizicoufi.

6. Having hearciithe lqéefhehi,._ve;e1'aIQCa£ee"Aafﬁypearing for parties and en award as 3.130 to the petition 111; hhvigohhhhote at this stage, submiseioh « Wcounsei appearing for peﬁtienef of his arguments wherein?

he h;{.e"ez;b::§i':i:e§'iihe{ management ie ready and wiﬂihg ﬁe' Vrei13:e_i;%,:e4 'Ehe :eepende::§~w9:}qhen in the same eeei :iraf.':h-._VeéeiVi'::.:;§:§f'V9? eeeizéee éer {he gerpeee if iermieai

-V be::e7;ZE€s"*-Aaiité pay the zaferkghee eerremt V€{:'t§€8 zzemeijg eéjegfee the: wezséd be paéé ":9 a exam he}: if apeeinieé icifiajg. ?eiiiie::e:'~:ne::age:§:e:2i ea meme: terms ezyi e:::=::5i':;£ees egreeﬁ upeﬁ §.'§€{'5f€*§1'E ihe reaﬁagemeei aid the i?i7C%'§"§i§fEE3il has reiheiiejzed 81 Werieheg whe hes? heee eemeased ieéiheei eerséueéézrzg 35:}; €§EQ§_l§:§:'f§L 32"; She: eieigv 4,\ M,__»,,,,, ,§o wages should be awarded fully or enly' partially (and if so the percentage). That depends upon the faete and eireumstaneeef of each ease. Any ineome received by employee during the relevant period1w""'on;...__t' account of alternative employmerzt' voxj"

business is a relevant factor to be ta.l;:e:1_: 'fnot':--e:' of while awarding back» wageé', in addition to the several factors mentioonedlleln Singh (supra) and Udai 'Narain Pandefx V' K (supra). Therefore, itV'lis....neeeesVary folrjthe employee to plead that"h,e*--was not employed from the date___VofV_hi_vs tefininatioh.

While an employee..'eannot'be asked toprove the negative, hellhas 'to{,a,€ -assert on oath that he was _neither_-~«.ei*nployed nor engaged 1:1" any lgaiilfnl lb1_lS_iIl1'E:SS for venture and that lie.-didllnot l*iax%eAany._in.eome. Then the l;§':11"r1erL--...Will .:f>hi'1°--t_ to" the employer. But there ._is:;__ ';.vho\iéexreizff- obligation on the te1'r~nioated"'e;mploy~ee to*~--eeahzh for or secure £;lternatii;=e _employ'1nen_t._-- Be that as it may?"

"l§Lv,_But the"«eaee;:~{:'eferred te above; where baekaeragede 2 1/ee:'e~* awarded? related :0 4;tezfminatie_n'fl1'etfenehment which were held §llegal'v--e-wed invalid for nomeomplianee Wit}: .e>t.atutery requirements er related ':0 ..:aIl§.ere the eeurt feund that the '--.Ve«te:*:*::é.::a§:§'en ezae eeetivated or a1'e.e*anted te victim-ﬁeeation. The deeieiena relating to Eoael; zsafagee eayable en illegal retrenchment er ieezeinatien may have ee applieatiee te the ease like the pfeseet eee, where the terminatiee idtemieeal Sf' reeneval es eenagaleery eetiremenij iie lo}? way ef penieheient fer znieeenduet in a degjartzneetal inqasirge and the eeurt eeefinee the ﬁzzdieg eegardieg f:s"1iS€i'32§"i§i.§C"§Z9 bet eel}? interferes with the etmiehment eeieg ef the view; that it ie exeeeeiveg and aaeaede a leeeee ielaeiehmene eeeeltieg ée the T titre " ptirrishrneni p«el:én"trssiVe':i frets cases where terrninsiisn is V hel.d't'<;*i3e iliegei er veicl) is that there is ne 4' s:;--rtei':istic

-:{:}_ reinstatement sf ernpieyeei Where the sewer under Article 226 or sectien HA ef the industrial Disputes Act [or any ether similar T previsien} is exercised by any Court * interfere with the punishment on the gI'C¥§.;i1*}'TVV.._' ' that it is excessive and the en1pleyeeV"'~ deserves a lesser punishment, eonsequential direction .l'SSl_'1€ClM "tor ' reinstatement, the court islnot-.holding._that..'-___' the employer was in the vvrsng or that the "

dismissal was illegal z:,nd__ invalid'. T ::"'cet,1rt is merely exercising its discretion'-.to evvarldv ex" 3 lesser punishment. Til1""-,su..ch pewer is exercised, the dis"m.;issail'is'véilid'-and in"force. When the punish1nent7_ips by a court as being excessive; tliereilyhe either a direction for,_reinst:iten0ent-or er direction for a nominal'"ltrmp'=._st:rn7compensation. And if reinst_ate:ne1nt;'. is _ch_rected, [it can be effective either _Vprfospec'tivel3iyfrorn the date of such st:b~stiti;itiori::nf ptinishmentf (in which event, there _ it _r1o_ -continuity of service) or re'tresper:tiv.e'1y; the date on which the penalty: st lteirni-negtion was imposed [in which-..Vevent;_ t1'iere~5" can be a censequentisl stirectien» relating te continuity of service). reqtiire.s..«"te he noted in eases W'hf31'6 iiri€iing._._of rniseenelttet is affirmed and enly is interferes with (as reinstatement: and if i'eiesisienfiest is sirecteﬁ, it is net siitenisiiesiiy with retrespective effect iresi the sate st" ierrninstien. Tiiereisre, wiiere reinstatement is e eenseqtience ei irripesitisn sf s iesser punishment, neither 'eseliwsrsges ner eeniinsiiy sf service ner eenseqiientisi senefitsi felieix; es rs natural; er neeesssry €Qi1S€C§,,i€I1$€ ef seen reinsteteirieni, in cases sziiere the rriiscendtiet is iizeisi 'is be preses, snsi reinststessent is itseif s esnseeiieritisi '5 set M1}-

beneiii arising item irnpesiiieiri bi a. lesser puriishineni, award Of baek Wages far 'she peried when the empieyee has net: werked, may ameun: ie rewarding the deiinquei:ié:._:"~.._4 employee and punishing the €InpI0yer_...fO'r..'V-"V; taking action for the miseenduet e0mm:t,ted''--.i'L:''-- ' by the employee. That should be _eiV»c_$i<:ied.A;."~ Similarly, in Such easeey -ever: <2:'ri=iei°e"' V continuity 0f service is diiiected, ;i't._ s1f1e:>i_11d,,__ only be for purposes .. of ~ i pensionary/retirement»'benefit::a_, and :ie't.f0:f é other benefits like iner-einents, vpf0iII'QﬁQIiS"' "

etc,"

8. Keeping in ii iaid Clown hereinabove g&riieij.'*I "Ito the facts on hand, it 'en the (me hand is abancionnieni of service frem 24.3, i992 and on ihepfiiier "i>§;*0:r;i<rIi.iaii eeriteneie ihai: he has beeii :'3ieffeieee1i:A'e3_i'i';2iey:iieni by meiriagemeni wiiiii efieei frem my " Zi§.}5;'i, i'"§'3,_ Ei§§8:i}Bi§;§6?IE€§i§ bee §§"f}§E1C€§ fem" ﬁeeiiiiieeiie iiaiiieijg-5A te ikié L§u.¢€¢:§ eepfg sf 3 §"€1"Zfiiil5i€§' eeié ite §§2:{%?_€ ﬁeepaiebeﬁ is {he Weeiiiiiaez eaiiiiig mean him ﬁe Aggeiiib fee éi:i:§?, eepy ei iiie aiieiiéaiiee Yegieier éei" ibe V mHi1iS§}§"} bf iviareii i§§2i esp}? eé iiie §3.}?3;i1€i'}i eegieier fer the iiieriiii ei Mﬁfiiié i992 "i'i"iee.e éeeuzeeaie ezeiiié ége ii} ehea? "éa§'§3;'§:ﬂ'§"E:$i"i bee ziieriieé iiie aiiﬁfiﬁiaiiiﬁ iii} giviareii ,ie«W"i -32- E992 ane; was paici saiary ugte March 1993 0:: the ether harzzi, werklnari has contended that there.?*iee.s refusal of ernpleyment by management with 54,1993. In other words workman stateshh e:

working an March 1993 and salary till March 1993. .}3}§<_eept "..ee:;i:erat§i1§.VV evidence what has been stateeii the segteelent no ether decumentary Vgrorkrnan before the Labquf CQ't'lI"£:.-- it is te be further the Workman, refusal,-0f.ef:'1;S1®:;:1eﬁt'.' 1998. He has raisede 200} ie, on 19.9.2001 vide Annexureli-3; vThe:eA.:s».1;_iet even a whisper in the claim ..,_e:af§ev::*:§it1f1éVVA_e:~ i::"hi..s__eea;'i§e::ee as is the eesgee fer deiey _ i1i:a€:.»'e;e"'~w§: :na§g: ieeue regaeéing terminatien having iéeeﬁ refeiéieﬁ by ihe eppreprieie éléeézerzzmerzi is {he §1.3§§S{}:%§"A€IiSE:a§ iabezge C9213': erzé as rightly f3€3':'{§€§'}§§§ by '_§a5f£_:f.,:"_.i"!§:3i<:i:e.e:s::e.pp3; Refeyeeee eaﬁﬁei he §}i§§€€j 22:23; ihe er {EEfC>i?iF'E'i. eugt en ﬁze greuné eé ﬁeiay iieeii Eieweverg Eabegr {ieuri zafhﬁe aizswerigag the queeiiee referreﬁ is E; ie emgeaseereé eerie; enéiiieei :0 ieéie {he 3 ,,, M,,., M33"

delay faeier inie eeneideration fer meuiding the Fﬁéiﬁfe At {hie jeneture; plea as well as eviclenee tenderelgey' both parties would come to the forefront enable the Labour Court to grant or "

Labour Court formulated issue:=.,:No,_.~llzf3reg;;1rdin,?§'~.' and has proceeded to *rej.ec:t the VcoritC%nti_or1_V§ of management to rejeer the err ground of delay by relying upon' Horrible Apex Court in theeaee 'end Supplies, Punjab & Ar:emlz;¢;i§:ol::§fs;' iurgeported in (2007) 5 SCC;lVfi3:is be necessary to note A Supreme Cour': in the ease ef VBeir:»le~'l'Lid.l And KP, llrladhaeankuity eeporhieglv-é§2.«'2O0O (13 LLJ 561 wherein if has r_'_'e'ee;:' -gtheugla lee; deee net: preeeribe any elme lililifllil fer.':§:V_e epprepriaie goazeremee}: ee exereiee {is V'~».eewer' .;;§e.lQ ef the ledueiiiial Déepeiee ﬁres, 394?, ii " .§f;:;€::§§%::':§ eeelé rree Tee exereieed ea: any peéei eé" time as in .,é¥o:ie eaee 5?' years} end revive reaiiere eshiee has 'eeerz eeéileﬁl ?ewe:" hee ée ee exereieeé eﬁihie reeeenafele ieee age; Er: e eeiiéeeel zeeizererl Thee Wee the eese 2 52%;"

M14- where the issue régarding Vvaiidiiy Sf §"€f€I'€ﬁC€ iiself was under adjusiicaiion and was heid that if ihetre isgéizgr unexplained delay and records being unavai1ab1~e;"

having b€COI1'1€ stale then such disput-€.S_V"V»§L1'éVV' }j10f"

required to be referred.

9. However, taking intcs,és:>:1siderai:iori_; <:V2;téﬁaVV of V decisions Division Bezjch iIV1 t11e";:ase of North West Kar1:1atakeVLV V Corporaiion, Hubli and LLJ 297, has held V ' VV V' V "}:.4. IV1'17.ft,h§3'?.casé'~..of Sapan Kumar Pandit (SVupr::}, i:hVe.VV';'£§:V1prémé-- Court rmticed the {W3 jL1dVg::iIe1f1tSi:1V =Sh$f{i:_1V1'a:" Works Limite:d's C2186? {supra} and 7_VV€._si:e,1j:': India Watch Company Limited V, V "»VesiV:ern India Watch Company VVV'Vs;7Q1V"K€:fi'$V U'::i.r).r1«and Others, AER i§7<3 SC :2{3::~:,:%~:§?0 an SCC 225 ; i§'?G~«E-LE,J»258 V '*a:V1--:jV" .§§"1€ judgmeni in Eﬁedungadi Bank _V'".__L§§:§':&é'é'~'5:3.s€§ {supra}. Aéier gzaiésézzg ﬁgs ' ,_ V Suggfeiazé Q0133: as zznéiéri Tiéére am Cases 3:: xazhéch iapga ef iima 313$ Qauaed fading gr €V$§°§ adipse sf iihg digguiis. if nabscijg E133 Rep: 'sihs éispzzta 335:6 ﬁufing thé Zémrig izziierval ii ifs; rsassnably p9Ssi'§i.6 is sgriﬁmde in 3; payéismiar sass ihai ﬁgs dégpzgéie cwsgé $0 $313: a§:r;~*::' somé iima Bu: whsa "Q16 {§§S§!,ii€ r€:2;:3§:1€<:?: aéiare ﬁ":€:>u§Ei: nai g3,§*s:an:2:§é bf; éhé %??Z'§§;"KE'§'3§Eﬂ SE" Size 335130;; en acaazmi 9% aha? ggusiiféeﬁ 'Q -15- reaeohe, it cleee net eause the dispute to wane into total eclipse. In this ease when the Government have ehesen te T refer the dispute for adjudication under» .. Section 4~K of the U.P.A<:t the Court should not have quashec'-g"theTV"" 3 reference merely on the grour1c_i'~~.VVo'E.V:' delay. Of course, th€:"'1'o-1-"lg (_l4elay''e;Eor ' making the adjudication. T A feould..." '=be=. considered by the"; 1-adjudieating. " ' authorities while.*t'rn_ouldi1:1_g" its ireliefev. That is a differer1tl.o»'r:1.atter '--.alt€)g_ether§"

The High Court has, obviously gorjie wrong in .a;:ing.wrtioW:1 the orde'1'""of reference marle.bf;! C3over1:1ment for adjudication. ' the_._ 2 "a..dju_dieatory process reach "fits legal, _eulmjr1.ation.' In 'the7QpIfeS€11_tRlglse' is seen that the workri:ar1::_h_ad triedio e::plai,r1"'away Cause of del-ay. ir'1'~.the< s_tateme_1fft. He says that l'1:'._S serViees_'had.4hee11 terminated on March 11:, 119859 .Vf~..l~lis Vt'-afjpeal was rejected on Jaﬁt;_a:j§; E E-986"--ahslllhe explains the delay by eerﬂgendih-g e:f"a.._pending revision and the géieposalw-.of"the Same er: February Z1994.

§,_abe1ir"vCet:rt on eviclenee hag feund _ t that the__esorl«::na:e has not produced a eespy : '=ef're:rie§oh petition in support ef his %e§i{§:*=la::a%.§e:é ef the elelay. Er: ehe light of theee _ 'faete'ii:l_ tie elear te us that there ie no live ae§u:e as in tee ease ef Sapar: Kama?

?':r;§1;t's eaeer teegpral. Eherefore, the V * juﬁgeaeet is teealiy inapplicable te the faete _ et thée eese, Eteeeet aeeeet ail the judgreerzte eiteé lay' the eseekrnae are eat helpful te hire lvlereover? re the ease eh hand there is eeorereue delay ef eight years whieh hae heeh eeeeeied h}; the Lahee:

Ceurt as well, Eﬁée eloed: eee he ipurepeé irate eithegf by the Laiaezgr Cotzrt er la}; thée Ceuyt fer a etaie eleael eefeeeeeef' "

3

alga lﬁ, A reading of the abeve judgments W0uld.Vg._r:llte shew that on aeeeunt of delay if any attribut_al§le~lf_:;s..:§l1;_j_ _ employee :0 raise a dispute, it weulgi» put .'i1*1'e" --::i:l1er. sir;le__4 1312., Management in a situation \l;7l'1¢3i'€L£l1(flE3r'itll'Vfil1:V'lf1«(5ltiVe_' be able to defend itself effeellxfiely FE'TSl;1lV:t'll1gV of natural justice being violaat--eel"Lvat:dL' not available and such ether would result in placing 1;; sizliilation thereby resulting iréi to defend its actien delay defeats equity eannet ixbeell .lo'stV: ﬁhis eeurt. ll: is in this baeKg:feunel;'~~ delay. if, am}; has eeeurred in raising a ' "v:iie§;ai:ei..%e?il§'vl--llai?e lees examined v§a~a~=2:ls zreiéll regard lie _e%;;:ideeee ef ﬁle pariiesl A cureerj; leek ef the l'l8IE§ wealﬁ ge 'ate shew iha': theee is ea "'§leaé%:.:g_j me evlﬁezlee ieeéerea err: ﬁle pare ef ﬁle _ ézéezieiyeae. Fziiﬁhﬁfﬁ elalm has heel': aéjaéieaieé ea 44 _.;g;e§ite and as rlghily ebeerézed 'eff; ﬁle Laban? Ceuri, eetlélag ereaseeted élle azaeagemeel 'ea greﬁaee eegea': evlaelwe i:::;;: eeialaléell élzai evee afie: lEl§2 {EEG ¥§%W,/» 2riE.3,1§92;L abandemnen": Gf S€i'iFiCtEf 'by wariiman <::3r1ti::u,:€d, Even thé workman has 3130 $131; *t:em:{'é'r:ed any evidence except his self serving t«3stim--:i:;y__'_ cantending that with effect from 15.4. 1993.. refused smployment. Thus? it E2§)i1s...4<3;.:'Mu7n that it is a Gath against O2l}[1'Z :2iI}ad X/§* hi%f1': Qf {C the proximity of the truth the §1eadings and evideriC%_§ ' Mféxﬁagememt has produced ton of March 199.2' light and thca argume:--3J:--~?0f petitianer cannot be brush<%{§&8§Es"'id<=V3V gjf' even this f€€b1€ evidanca available :.'3:<t._V r«s:<:€:»::d}._ " againsi; this feabie avidence .._WQ:i' §;%::23,§§ hag ;r:é'§v.p.r::;§uceé. azzy cageni materiai G1' has L_::+::é eaié§:_"e§:'2:a§:1i::$d; 3 <:$~am§:0:g'€$ is ﬁemensiraéte 'éhat f:*%3':j_:_§ a vp.a';;§L3{;~:;;5%:§ar data :33. zsiiaf. E5.4,19§3 ?§'":€§'§ hag W.'j:;>é:e;@ :"'::%fé;sa§ sf &:::§};a:.?:::€:1't: by §$i%.:§@:;e§~:::a1:age:ms:::i. :i'§3.Q:§;'h managemzefgt 3:53 §E"G£§':i€3€§ {game EZXEXEE %'%.?h§£h ._i;é§ Saié 'ig és 3 mp1; 8? {E13 §%:§:£:':de;§ Cezéieizéiﬁg ﬂzat if: V Ema bﬁﬁlfi S€§"°i?€{':i 0:: 'ihé Weféiznag it faiigci §::: §§'8%f:'é1C€ Muédam §3£}{§i whécia vmuiﬁ éjéaiiﬁ :*§§é€c*i:&é the S§§E"iai€i§'€ 3, "

egg» ef the resps§1der:t~werkma1": fer 'saving 1"€{3€i'iJ€{3 the said reminders In fast, the Witness M'v'v'fi submitted there is no impediment for him to produce the "

but not produced. Thus? management_.h.a:s'::.a1s§ been able to demonstrate suecesésfttd-ﬁjgff'» abandonment of service by Court as discussed 11'ereina1ddVe:,_' fer from either 24.3.1992, er sf the dispute in the year 20Q:i* idea also seems to he has not agitatedhis'VAVts}:Vaitt::§:':i.f management. As held "Csurt in 5.1:. Synthetids ease grate;-._Vdee§ Vbaehjirages depends upon facts and "'«.,_eire§f§s1s.ta;1ees sf' ease. in the instant ease, it is s_tie'>:3::d. t%2;aet..4:'t>es§;et:eier:t ~ 'assrkman hatrtttg slept safer his frififlsd '§§3 ass having avekers; tip in the year EDGE V'-it eatésst be esastesed as having: §%£fS§Ii€fd his eiaim " .s?it§":§;ut any :,§§'3t§iE1§ deiajg er haste as sect; srder sf the .,E__;a'sss:* Csuet direetieg szasagemest ts gay 39% baeksragfes fees: Q93 easiest 'ee ssstatsedt ﬁezseet ts the said e:>sEe1::t.§ 3.§%'§f€§ ei the Eases? {:3C%t;3"?. is ts be x ~'°V 9 as high medifieé by setting aeicie the grant ef 3Q'3"e heekwegee from 1993 HE reinstatement, Hewevexg it is requiretite be noticed that from 2001 onwards, werkman...h§3;e.':bee:i"

preseeuting his claim before the Lab01;.r_,'V_'C..eu§§§~ igguzzd management was 3.130 unable 15;) pjietijuee 'C3,11y"eoge1j}t materiai ﬁe establish the faeieﬁthat there has eeffziee "

of call letter or reminder as duly served en the werkxneigg' I' the AA<:ensidered Vi€VV that during the before the Labour for backwages at the rate Q93 till reinstatement, Te theQ:._'eX:'e:1e,:'V Eabeur Court requires to be rnedifiedlx 4.

page the feilewihg:

QRDELR " 256$: ?e:%J:ie§: ﬁe eiéewed he ;ea:r*:. A 32:} The award 9? the ieheue Ceeri deﬁed 2§'ECL2G3{} enhexureﬁ ':9 éhe exieiei ef eweydimg SSW; haekwegee {Fem 15.4;§9§3 'iiéi reineieéemehe 3:139 eereéee is h€E"6b}§ Se: eeide end 3%, is heeehjg ezeéereé the? §ee§eeéee:~ "zeeeieizee weeéd he eniiiéeé ﬁe beekgveegee 3%: the yea ,«»"""

"20.

53:6 0f 38% from the @316 Gf ardeis sf Réferencé 28.9.2001 iii} the date of reinstatemen: 0:-ily in {ha pscuﬁar fa<:'€S and €irC:u:n3£ance$f"0f '~1:f:€§ C886.

(3) N0 O§'d€1' as ':9 costs.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court