Karnataka High Court
Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs Kumari Chandrakala on 27 August, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION No.109 OF 2008 (L-MW)
C/W. WRIT PETITTION NO.8684 OF 2013 (L-TER)
IN WRIT PETITION No.109 OF 2008
BETWEEN:
Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Kadur-577548,
Chikkamagaluru District,
Karnataka State,
By its Secretary. ...Petitioner
(By Sri. A.C. Balaraj, Advocate(Absent)
AND:
1. Kumari Chandrakala
D/o. Sri Narasimha Kamath,
Major,
C/o. Sri. G.S. Nagaraj,
General Secretary,
Chikkamagaluru District Plantation
Workers and other Workers Union (INTUC)
No.11457,
Near Gangadhareswara Temple,
Fort Road,
Kadur-577548.
Chikkamagaluru District.
2
2. State of Karnataka,
Department of Co-operation,
M.S.Building,
Bengaluru - 560 001,
Represented by its Secretary.
3. The Director,
Office of the Director of
Agricultural Marketing,
No.16, 2nd Rajbhavan Road,
P.B.No.5309,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
4. Assistant Director,
Department of Agricultural
Marketing, Chikkamagaluru District,
Chikkamagaluru - 577 101. .. Respondents
(By Sri. K. Govindaraj, Advocate for C/r-1;
Sri. Laxminarayana, AGA for R-2 to R-4)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of Constitution of India praying to set aside the order
dated:02.11.2007 passed by the Labour Officer and
Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, Sub-Division-2,
Chikkamagaluru, vide Annexure-E and reject the
application filed by the respondent Annexure-A and etc.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.8684 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Kadur-577548,
Chikkmagaluru District,
Represented by its Secretary. ...Petitioner
3
(By Sri. A.C. Balaraj, Advocate(Absent)
AND:
1. Chandrakala
D/o. Sri. Narasimha Kamath,
Major, C/o. G.S. Nagaraj,
General Secretary,
Chikkmagaluru District,
Estates Labour Union (R)
Main Office, Fort Road,
Kadur-577 548.
2. The Assistant Director,
Agricultural Marketing,
Chikkmagaluru-577 548.
3. The Director of
Agricultural Marketing,
Office of the Director of
Agricultural Marketing,
No.16, 2nd Raj Bhavan Road,
P.B.No.5309,
Bengaluru-560 001.
4. The Assistant Labour
Commissioner cum Appellate,
Authority Under Karnataka
Shop and Establishments Act,
Chikkmagaluru Division,
Chikkmagaluru-577548. ...Respondents
(By Sri. K. Govindaraj, Advocate for R-1;
R-2 to R-4 are served but unrepresented)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned
orders dated 24.07.2006 passed by the R4 and bearing
4
revision and C.E.No.1/06 dated:10.12.2012 passed by the
Learned Additional District Judge, Chikkmagaluru vide
Annexure-H and J respectively and etc.,
*****
These Writ petitions coming on for Preliminary
Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The case of respondent No.1-workman is that she was appointed as a Typist-cum-Computer Operator in the office of the petitioner on 17.1.1985. She was illegally terminated on 14.11.2005 without an enquiry or without issuing any termination order or notice. She has rendered service for more than 20 years as a Typist-cum-Computer Operator on a salary of Rs.2,200/-
per month. On account of termination, she is entitled for a month's salary for the period of 20 years i.e., 21 months i.e., Rs.2,200/- per month. Hence, she approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner. 5
2. The petitioner put in appearance and denied the averments. It was pleaded that the workman was never employed by the petitioner, therefore, the question of termination would not arise. The claim for 21 months salary is misplaced. Thereafter, by the impugned order, the Assistant Labour Commissioner allowed the petition and directed the writ petitioner to pay the workman a sum of Rs.46,200/-.
3. Aggrieved by the same, a Revision was filed by the writ petitioner before the Additional District Judge, Chikkamagaluru. By the impugned order dated 10.12.2012 vide Annexure-J (in Writ Petition No.8684 of 2013), the Revision was dismissed. Hence, Writ Petition No.8684/2013 by the management.
4. In the interregnum, the workman had also filed an application before the Labour Officer and Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, claiming difference of wages from 1.4.1995 to 31.10.2005. Objections were filed by the writ petitioner. The Authority, by the impugned order dated 6 2.11.2007 vide Annexure-E (in Writ Petition No.109 of 2008), directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,36,506/- towards difference of pay between 1.4.1995 to 31.10.2005 and Rs.68,253/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the Management has filed Writ Petition No.109 of 2008.
5. The learned counsel for the Management is absent.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the workman, as well as the learned Government Advocate.
7. The subject matter in dispute being one and the same, the petitions are taken up for consideration together.
8. The specific plea of the Management is that the workman was not in their employment. That she was employed by virtue of a tender being awarded to one Suresh Enterprises. Even otherwise, there is no material to indicate that there is any employment by the 7 Management. However, the Authority considered the evidence in terms of Ex.P-1 produced by the workman. It is a letter written by one H.K.Nagaraj, Ex-President of APMC. He has stated that the employment of the workman as a Typist requires to be regularized since she has put in 15 years of service. Based on this document alone, both the impugned orders have been passed. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that since the position has been admitted by the petitioner, there is no error that calls for any interference.
9. So far as the admission with regard to the employment of the workman is concerned, reliance is placed on the evidence let in by the management which is produced vide Annexure-D in Writ Petition No.109 of 2008. I have considered the same. There is no admission with regard to the employment of the workman with them. In fact, what they have stated is that the workman is not appointed by them at any point of time. That the workman, if at all, was appointed, through the tenderer. 8 That no salary at any point of time has been paid by the Management. That there is no relationship of employer and employee. That there is no appointment order given to the workman. When this was the specific case of the Management, the reliance placed on a communication by the Ex-President of the petitioner would be of no avail. The right of the workman does not flow from any communication by any ex-employee of the Management. Only because a letter has been written does not fructify into any legal right of the workman. The same is opposed to the facts of the case. There is not even a single piece of evidence produced by the workman to indicate any relationship with the workman. The entire case of the workman rests only on Ex.P-1, which is a letter written by Sri H.K.Nagaraj. The same will not confer any legal right on the workman. It is a letter that would not have any legal sanctity. Since both the impugned orders are primarily based on the letter of Sri H.K.Nagaraj, the authorities have committed an error in granting the relief to the workman. Therefore, the same is unsustainable. 9 The orders passed by the authorities are on misreading of the evidence on record. Therefore, both the orders suffer on facts.
Consequently, Writ Petition No.8684 of 2013 is allowed. The impugned order vide Annexure-H dated 24.7.2006, passed by the Assistant Labour Commissionr- cum-Appellate Authority under Shops and Establishments Act, Chikkamagaluru Division, Chikkamagaluru and Annexure-J dated 10.12.2012, passed by the Additional District Judge, Chikkamagaluru, are quashed.
Writ Petition No.109 of 2008 is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.11.2007, passed by the Labour Officer and Authority under Minimum Wages Act, Sub- Division-2, Chikkagamaluru, vide Annexure-E, is quashed.
Rule made absolute.
SD/-
JUDGE bk/