Karnataka High Court
Sri B B Srinivas vs The Chief Manager State Bank Of Mysore on 11 April, 2008
Bench: S.R.Bannurmath, A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE a DATED THIS THE 11" DAY OF APRIL, 2008 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUS ICE S.R. BANNURMATH . AND a THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AN. nas GOWDA WRIT APPEAL NO. 2172/2007(L) BETWEEN: 1. Sri. B.B. Srinivas, Aged abcut 49 years, | Me S/o Boregowda, Oe R/at Bhoovanahalli,. Near Hucharnma 'femple, ~asba hobli, Hassan. "2. Sri. 4.N. Chandrasekhar, . Aged about 47 years, . S/o Nanjappa, . Rfo -Mukkundur Hosahallli 'Mailadevapura Post, Hessan. .. Appellants (By Sri: S.B. Mukkannappa, Adv.) "AND: The Chief Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Opp: to S.P. Office, Hassan. .. Respondent
High Court Act, 1961 praying to set aside 'the 'order « dated 28.8.2007 passed in W.P. No. 25447 of 2005. This Writ Appeal coming an for pralirinary" Wearing this day, BANNURMATH. J., delivered the following:
Being aggrieved. by the order of the learned Single Judge 28.8. 2007, - dismissing the wit petition, thereby affirming the, award. dated 28.7.2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunai, the present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the appellants is that they were engaged as temporary peon cum watchmen/sweepers with affect from 31, .3.1989, so far as 1* appellant is concerned . 'and with 'effect from 16.5.1987 so far as 24 appellant is concerned. It is stated that their services were continued
- . til the year 1993-94 and thereafter they were not allowed to work, Contending that as the workmen had worked for more than 240 days in a year and the managernent failed to comply with the mandatory requirernents under Section ga 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, and as such, they sought for references. --
3. Having accepted the references, the industrial Tribunal considered the entire raterial_ evi dence and by the award dated 28.7.2005 dismissed both the references.
Aggrieved by the same, the, : appellants/workmen approached this. Court int the aforesaid writ petition and the learned Single Judge has. al $9 aff rmed the award. Hence, the present appeal.
4. sri singaseapes: veroed counsel appearing for the: appellants vehemently contended that as there is
- failure of consideration of important and material evidence > in the form of W series produced by the appellants, especially, not giving importance to the vouchers, both the
--_ : Industrial Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have committed an illegality and error respectively. It is i submitted that these vouchers in fact indicate that the appellants had worked for more than 240 days. Though the question as to whether the workmen worked for more ome than 240 days in a given year, is a finding of fact, which has been considered by both the Industrial Tribunal and 7 the learned Single Judge, in order te. satisly ourselves, we | have also looked into the entire evidence ¢ once. again. on going through the same, we find: that so far. as these factors are concerned, the. witnesses for the management have clearly stated that' wi Ser ies, vouchers were the vouchers in respect oF hait-a- day work ofc cleaning carried out by the respective workmen and, 'not for full day work. This statement has pr acticaly remained unchallenged in the cross examination. It is to be noted that W2 produced | and relied upon by the zppellants themselves would show . 7 that in the year 1991, the appellants have worked for 53 days, for the. year 1992 for a period of 37 days and for the | year 1993 they hardly worked for 179 days on half day's
-- "salary. W1 series indicate that they are cash payment : vouchers in respect of srnali cleaning job entrusted to the _ workmen. Similar is the case in respect of the 2"
a appellant. Considering these aspects, in fact the Industrial Tribunal has taken pain to analyse this evidence at para 16 Ss onwards of the award. Perusal of the same indicates that *s 7 the Industrial Tribunal has based its finding on appreciation of the material evidence putforth by beth the sides and has come to the conclusion that reference is liable to be dismissed as } the appeliants have failed to prove that in a given yee', they were working for more than 240 days. The jeer ned Single judge has also considered this. asvect. "Even Ci 're-appreciation of the entire evidence, we. do not find 'that there is illegality or perversity in appreciation of this evidence and hence we uphold the order of the jearned Single Judge as well as the _ award impugned. We find no merit. Appeal is rejected.