Karnataka High Court
Management Of Kirloskar Institute Of ... vs Sri N Manjunath on 16 December, 2011
Author: H.N.Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N.Nagamohan Das
ORDER In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed forav the nature of certiorari to quash the award dated4i__30.l0,:2008t~ Ref.No.24/2001 passed by the Labour:V'iCiourit at Hubiikii 2. Petitioner was a'i_r'e-gistered compa_ny.:.'unde'r there' provisions of CO11'1paI1i€S__./}CIZ. S&Vi1b--setp1eiitiy, iithayeziir 1990 the petitioner institution canie to the provisions of Karnataka iPetitioner society is engaged in teaching, training, research and 1997, petitioner appointed the respondent ivvorik-men as office boys/c1eaners/
electiricians/wolrkmian___Grade -- H/receptionist etc. On 30.9.2000 ' pe"ti.tion_er*is'sued._a notice discontinuing the service of respondents w'orkme_rrby_ paying retrenchment compensation under Section 25F oifvthe I.D.Act. Aggrieved by this termination, respondents 0 v.in»Ltiated conciliation proceedings and the same ended in failure. /ct.
The Government by order dated. refe:.'rled_A between the parties for adjudicatlionlto thelL~a_hou--r'lCoLirt and the same came to be registered in rRef'.l~l.o:.?/l0,/2001. liOn"the basis of the pleadings, the Labour Co_urt'fra7m'ed_thie" following issues for its consideration:
17 "st/rirkman ' under Section Act?
_ Z' t];~3pl.:)naHa;;3éiiien[ 13 /',;5[1'f1'ed 1'12 c2'1's1m'5s1'ng M 5-e;~ia£jeJi Wei 1.10.2000?
1I1)ll _4 l1'f,nor,. _tl0iel._v1?'1'1.lai_l.ltIi'1"e/1'e1€s the said claimants are enzjt/ed? _"Before the Labour Court petitioner examined one and got marked Exs.l\/Il to M28. Respondents examined Zoizeilnwitness as WW.l and got marked Exs.Wl to W40. The '~Lab.our Court on appreciation of the pleadings, oral and idioeiinientary evidence held that respondents are workmen as fiiéfified under Section 2(5) of the l.D.Act. The termination of the
--respondents is contrary to the terms of appointment, illegal and _K''*\ unsustainable in law. Consequently, under the impngnied-i.:aWard_,i the Labour Court directed reinstaternent with backwages and consequential petition.
4. Heard arguments' Q11 the entire writ papers. H
5. Sri petitioner contend that respoyndlentis tlisinissed by the petitioner and on-.A'th'e4l'V._yVere only retrenched by paying retrenchrnent c'onip'ensa,tion"ias required under Section 25F of the Thereforeiithei dispute before the Labour Court is not I fTVhis contention was also urged before the Labour Court. Labour Court by considering the order of 'appointirnent, conditions contained therein and also the notice of discontinuance issued by the petitioner held that there is termination of respondent workmen by the petitioner and the same is illegal. This reasoning the Labour Court is in of the l.D.Act. On the face of it, the Labour Court held that notice of discontinuance is contrary to the terms of th'e"'l--et'ter'.,of appointment. This finding of the Labour Court is? accolrdlaiticle with law and there is no justifiable g"rounld'tol"inte'rfe_.re fV\lJ_iltl1: the same.
8. It is contended that inltheiabsencc§~.gii_pleadf:iI1g§ and a issue, the Labour Court c'orrimittedi_an li'llegalit--y that the notice of discontinuance as'contrarj/tovbecltion_33(2}_o'f the l.D.Act. It is not in dispgtiitelithpat-"oi; notice of conciliation was served'.vdfii't'he?petitiorier.'~,:Two days' later i.e. on 30.9.2000, the petitioner issued .the.:'1=.oti~cpe'"of"discontinuance. Admittedly, the petitioner has not 'obtained permission as required under Section On the face of it, the notice of 'dsisc-o'ntinuanc'efis bad in law. This is purely a question of law Cl€ClCl8(l'C;)11ltl1€ basis of admitted facts. The Labour Court on the of admitted and undisputed facts held that the notice of F\ P' /.
:10: discontinuance as contrary to Section 33(2) of the l.D./'xct;~ this finding of the Labour Court is in accordance ii" i
9. It is contended that in the conciliation pirecevedingsl; the petitioner on humanitarian grounds recornmvenided; the'? services of respondent workmeii"'«.llto be with the Contractor to whom and other allied activities was the same.
Therefore, mistake in awarding full The Labour Court noticed that the Colntrac-tor with work of Canteen and allied' workslleftlthe petitioners establishment in short time. Thpereafilter same work was entrusted to the unlicensed ex» . empl.oyee lo~f._th_epetitioners establishment. In the circumstances, theilaaboiir.Court held that this is nothing but a camouflage. Even Qthlervvise, the petitioner cannot compel the respondent workmen work under a Contractor. Therefore, the Labour Court has not committed any illegality.
:11:
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on judgments reported in 1970(2) LL] 429 and AIR 19:>32~sc.s:'854 contend that a lurnpsum compensation may be aw'ar__dedV'ci'n lieu of V reinstatement with backwages. l decline to a:vclept'ithi.s: c'oVn.t_ention of the learned counsel for theppetitroner. notilycellofllls discontinuance the petitioner as to why they are discontinuing After service of notice in conciliaftj0,11_ issued notices of discontinuan'ce§'p_««__V :'l_)oi3e:aficl'es on the part of the petitionerltojurisdiction of this court. For no fault-.oui' they are illegally terminated frorngsvervices. ellrerefore, this is not a fit case to exercise 'A disciretioni in fayour of petitioner establishment. H ._ Forl_t_vhe'reasons stated above, the writ petition is hereby JUDGE an