Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri K Veergowda on 1 June, 2015
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
W.P.NO.18723 OF 2015 [L-RES]
BETWEEN
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, FOREST, ENVIRONMENT
AND ECOLOGY DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
MANDYA DIVISION,
MANDYA.
3. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
NAGAMANGALA RANGE,
NAGAMANGALA,
MANDYA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS
(BY:SRI SHASHIDHAR S.KARAMADI, HCGP)
AND:
SRI K.VEERGOWDA,
S/O.LATE BOMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
KARDYA VILLAGE,
NAMAHALLI POST,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432. ... RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.7.2013 PASSED IN I.D.NO.6/2013,
BY THE LABOUR COURT, MYSORE, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The petitioners have called into question the award, dated 17.7.2013 passed by the Labour Court, Mysore in I.I.D.No.6/2013.
2. The case of the respondent workman is that he was appointed as a 'Watcher' in the office of the Range Forest Office, Nelamangala on 1.4.1985 and that he was illegally terminated from service on 6.12.2012. He filed the petition invoking Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('I.D.Act' for short). The Labour Court, by its award, dated 17.7.2013 (Annexure-A) allowed the petition in part by directing the petitioners to reinstate the respondent into the service to the same post last held by him along with 50% of backwages from the date of removal from service, i.e., 6.12.2012 till the date of reinstatement.
3. Sri Shashidhar S. Karamadi, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned award is without jurisdiction. He submits that the daily watcher is not entitled to be reinstated as per the ratio in 3 the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS v. UMADEVI AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2006 KAR 2607.
4. Admittedly, the petitioners were served with the notice in the proceedings before the Labour Court. For the reasons best known to themselves, they did not take part in the proceedings. In the memorandum of the writ petition also, there is not even a whisper or sentence as to why the petitioners did not take part in the proceedings before the Labour Court. An exparte award can be set aside only if the petitioner has cogent explanation for not taking part in the proceedings before the forum down below.
5. For yet another reason too, I am disinclined to examine this petition on merits. There is a delay of one year eight months in filing this petition. This delay is not satisfactorily explained. The two reasons stated in paragraph No.11 of the writ petition for filing this petition are that the similarly placed persons may also file the petitions invoking 4 Section 10(4-A) of the I.D. Act and that it would cause loss to the State Exchequer.
6. In the absence of any cogent explanation for the delay of one year eight months, I am not persuaded to entertain this petition on merits. On the ipse dixit of the petitioners that this case may open the floodgates, no interference from this Court is warranted. Under Section 10(4-A) of the I.D. Act, the period for filing the petition is six months from the date of communication of the order of termination to the workman. There is no provision for the condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 10(4-A).
7. In the result, I reject this petition on two short grounds - (a) absence of any explanation for not taking part in the proceedings before the Labour Court and (b) the delay and laches. It is made clear that no opinion whatsoever is expressed on the merits of the case.
8. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE VGR