Karnataka High Court
H S Keshava Murthy vs The Divisional Controller on 3 March, 2023
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
WP No. 47359 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 47359 OF 2017 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
H S KESHAVA MURTHYW
S/O LATE H R SREEKANTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
DOOR NO. 116, SHANKARIPURAM,
LEFT SIDE OF MINIVIDANA SOUDHA
HASSAN
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.S. KESHAVA MURTHY, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC MYSORE URBAN DIVISION,
BANNIMANTAPA
MYSORE-540040.
Digitally
signed by
POORNIMA 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC
SHIVANNA
CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTI NAGAR
Location:
HIGH BANGALORE-560002.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE THE ORDER
UNDER WRIT OF CONTEMPORARY QUASHING THE ORDER IN
APPLICATION NO.2/2012 LABOUR COURT, MYSORE ON DATED: 05-
02-2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-A9 AND ETC.
-2-
WP No. 47359 of 2017
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.01.2023, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a) Issue the order under Writ of contemporary quashing the order in application No. 2/2012 Labour Court Mysore on dated 05-02-2016 as per Annexure-A9
b) For relief of Back wages and arrears from dated: 05-07-
1988 to 19-01-1994 as per application No.479/1990, dated 5th October 2000, at Chikkamangalore Labour Court as per Annexure-V
c) For relief of 50% back wages as per Chikkamangalore Labour Court Award IDA No.41/1994 on Dated; 24-08- 2000 as per Annexure-A
d) For relief of Remand this case to Labour Court as per Civil Appeal No.4869/1999 on Dated: 28-08-2006 original copy of Supreme Court of which produce as per Annexure-A8
e) Issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction/directing the Respondent to grant the Petitioner full back wages with continuity of service and consequential benefit from the date of relieved dated:
26-04-2005 till the date of retirement Dated: 27-12- 2012.-3- WP No. 47359 of 2017
2. The above matter has a checkered history of multiple litigations between the petitioner and the respondent-Road Transport Corporation ['RTC' for short]. Though a lot of statements have been made as regards the earlier proceedings, what is in issue before this Court is the validity of the order dated 5.02.2016 passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru on IA-2/2012.
3. IA-2/2012 had been filed under Section 33(C)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ['ID Act' for short] seeking for a direction to the RTC to make payment of the due amounts. The said application came to be rejected by way of the aforesaid order. It is aggrieved by the same that the workman is before this Court.
4. Sri.H.S.Keshava Murthy, the workman, party-in-
person would submit that, 4.1. The Labour Court has committed error in referring to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4869/1999 which -4- WP No. 47359 of 2017 is reported in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. S.G. Kotturappa and Another1., inasmuch as the Apex Court came to a conclusion that the workman had not completed 240 days of service during the period of 12 months preceding termination as contemplated under Section 24-F read with Section 25-B of the ID Act.
4.2. The labour Court has completely misconstrued itself by holding that that order of dismissal has been confirmed by the Apex Court there being no enquiry which has been conducted and no documents have been furnished, his dismissal cannot be said to be proper.
5. Ms.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for respondent-Road Transport Corporation [RTC] submits that, 5.1. Entire lis has been decided by this Court and the Apex Court, the workman having been dismissed from service long ago and the 1 (2005) 3 SCC 409 -5- WP No. 47359 of 2017 respondent being a badli worker in the badli list and not a permanent workman, is not entitled for any reliefs.
5.2. The entire matter came to a rest with the Hon'ble Apex Court passing Judgment reported in [(2005)3 SCC 409] in Civil Appeal No.4868/1999 c/w Civil Appeal No.4869/1999, the workman being a respondent in Civil Appeal No.4869/1999.
5.3. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the status of badli workers has categorically held that badli worker cannot be better than a probationer and as such, badli worker's services can be terminated in the same manner as that of a probationer.
5.4. The termination of services of badli worker on account of his services not being satisfactory is a good ground which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court by setting aside the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court. She -6- WP No. 47359 of 2017 further submits that the petitioner had thereafter filed an application for clarification of the order which also came to be dismissed by an order dated 28.08.2006.
6. In the rejoinder, the party-in-person submits that in the clarification order, the workman had been permitted to pursue his remedy in an appropriate forum and it is in that background that the proceedings in Application No.2/2012 had been initiated which ought to have been considered independently by the labour Court, which not having been done, he submits that the prayers sought for are required to be granted.
7. Heard Sri.H.S.Keshava Murthy, petitioner, party-in-
person and Ms.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for the respondent-RTC. Perused papers.
8. There is no dispute that the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed an order in Civil Appeal No.4868/1999 c/w Civil Appeal No.4869/1999. The proceedings before the Apex Court was filed challenging the order of the -7- WP No. 47359 of 2017 Division Bench of this Court passed in W.A. No.373/1997. In the said appeal, the Division bench of this Court had dismissed the challenge made by the RTC of the awards dated 21.3.1987 and 31.10.1986 directing the reinstatement of the petitioner. On account of the Civil Appeal being allowed, the order passed in Reference No. No.57/1986 and 42/1983 dated 21.03.1987 and 31.10.1986 stood quashed, thereby confirming the order of dismissal of the petitioner-workman. That being the case, the petitioner's name being removed from the list of badli workers on 9.09.1980, the question of the petitioner claiming any amounts being due and are liable to be paid would not arise.
9. The lis between the workman and the RTC having attained finality before the Hon'ble Apex Court, if at all there is any amount which are due, the same are required to be established by the workman which has not been done before the labour Court. The petitioner has only filed a memo of calculation which -8- WP No. 47359 of 2017 cannot be considered as amount due and liable to be paid to the workman in an application filed under Section 33(C)(ii) of the ID Act.
10. The contention of the Petitioner Party in person that his removal was without an enquiry and the same is required to be set aside is also not tenable, he being a Badli worker, his name was removed from the list of Badli workers which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the same cannot now once again be re-opened by way of these proceedings.
11. In view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that there are no grounds made out in the present petition, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE LN