Karnataka High Court
The Management Of Sports Authority Of ... vs Mr R Suresh on 11 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6052
WP No. 28145 of 2013
C/W WP No. 51374 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 28145 OF 2013 (L-TER)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 51374 OF 2013 (L-TER)
IN WP No. 28145/2013
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGEMENT OF SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
NETAJI SUBHAS SOUTHERN CENTRE
MYSORE ROAD
BANGALORE 560 056
REPRESENTED BY TIS
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
MR. S.S. ROY
...PETITIONER
Digitally
signed by (BY SRI. JOSHUA HUDSON SAMUEL., ADVOCATE)
PRAMILA G V
AND:
Location:
HIGH COURT 1. MR. R. SURESH
OF SON OF LATE RANGAPPA
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.78, OPPOSITE RAILWAY STATION
VINAYAKA BADAVANA
NAYANDANAHALLI
BANGALORE 560 039
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL ., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6052
WP No. 28145 of 2013
C/W WP No. 51374 of 2013
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-
QUASH THE AWARD DT.07.09.2012 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.
LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.44/2005 VIDE ANNX-
E. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION OF
THE AWARD DT.7.9.2012 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. LABOUR
COURT, BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.44/2005 VIDE ANNX-E.
IN WP NO. 51374/2013
BETWEEN:
1. SRI R SURESH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O LATE RANGAPPA
NO.78, OPP. RAILWAY STATION
VINAYAKA BADAVANE
NAYANDAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560 039
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ,
NETAJI SUBHAS SOUTHERN CENTRE
MYSORE ROAD
BANGALORE 560 056
REP BY ITS DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENT
BY SRI. JOSHNA HUDSON SAMUEL.,ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:6052
WP No. 28145 of 2013
C/W WP No. 51374 of 2013
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE AWARD DTD.7.9.2012 PASSED BY THE I
ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, MYSORE IN I.D.NO.44/2005
VIDE ANNEX-A. ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER
FOR REINSTATEMENT AND BACKWAGES WITH CONTINUITY
OF SERVICE AND CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
WP No.28145/2013 is filed by the Sports Authority of India, Bangalore assailing the award dated 07.09.2012. In terms of the said award in ID No.44/2005, I-Additional Labour Court, Bangalore has allowed the claim in part. The prayer for reinstatement sought by the employee/respondent in WP No.28145/2013 is rejected. In lieu of reinstate, the Labour Court has awarded -4- NC: 2025:KHC:6052 WP No. 28145 of 2013 C/W WP No. 51374 of 2013 compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the award till realization of the entire amount.
2. The employee has also filed WP No.51374/2013 assailing the award rejecting the prayer for reinstatement. Since, both petitions arise from the common award, both the petitions are heard together.
3. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in WP No.28145/2013 is referred to as the employer and the petitioner in WP No.51374/2013 is referred to as workman.
4. Certain facts are not in dispute. The workman was initially appointed on 31.08.1994 as STD booth operator, to operate the 'STD booth' which was installed in the campus of the employer. The letter of employment would indicate that it was a contractual employment for six months valid from 01.09.1994 to 28.02.1995 on a consolidated pay of Rs.1,500/- per month. It is also forthcoming from the records that, after the expiry of six -5- NC: 2025:KHC:6052 WP No. 28145 of 2013 C/W WP No. 51374 of 2013 months mentioned in the appointment letter dated 31.08.1994, no further appointment letter was formally issued to the employee. However, workman continued to work in the telephone booth installed in the campus of the employer. It is also forthcoming that, periodically the salary was enhanced and later, it was on par with the minimum wages payable. It is also borne out from the records that the workman continued to work till 2005. Thereafter, the workman was also not allowed to work. The workman raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court after considering evidence led by both the parties, has passed the award referred to above.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the employer would contend that, the post in which the workman was working as telephone booth operator was not a sanctioned post. It was purely an appointment on contract basis and initial appointment was only for a period of six months. After expiry of six months, the workman was allowed to work in the telephone booth facility as a telephone booth -6- NC: 2025:KHC:6052 WP No. 28145 of 2013 C/W WP No. 51374 of 2013 operator as there was no telephone booth nearer to the place where the employer had its campus. It was only an additional facility provided to the inmates of the Sports Authority of India, Bangalore campus and the employee cannot be termed as a workman under the employer as such, the application for reinstatement is totally misconceived. It is also his contention that, compensation awarded is also untenable and it was not a case of dismissal and utmost, the employee was entitled to the retrenchment compensation and the award of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is much more than what he would have got as a retrenchment compensation, as such the impugned award has to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the employee on the other hand would contend that, the initial appointment was for six months. However, same was extended and when the extension was provided, no time limit was fixed and the salary was hiked from time to time. Later the salary was brought on par with the minimum wages -7- NC: 2025:KHC:6052 WP No. 28145 of 2013 C/W WP No. 51374 of 2013 payable and at no point of time after the initial expiry of six months, the workman was given to understand that the employment is on contract basis for a limited period.
7. It is also his case that, though the workman was initially appointed to operate the telephone booth, later, he was made to work in the playground, the office as well as in the mess and he was also paid additional salary for the additional work.
8. It is also his contention that the Labour Court erred in awarding compensation instead of reinstatement. Learned counsel by producing additional document i.e., the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'CAT') wherein few contract labourers under the employer were regularized, urged that the same benefit is to be extended to the present employee.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the employer would submit by reply that, the claim that the employee was working in some other places in the campus, in addition to the telephone booth is not established. The -8- NC: 2025:KHC:6052 WP No. 28145 of 2013 C/W WP No. 51374 of 2013 claim that he was paid additional salary is also not established as the employee has produced his bank statement. The bank statement does not indicate any payment towards additional job, which workman claims to have done.
10. As far as the contention relating to regularization of other employees, learned counsel for the employee would contend that, the present employee cannot claim parity as the other employees were working against the sanctioned post.
11. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.
12. The following point arises for consideration:
Whether employer establishes that it was only a contractual employment and the employee was not permanent workman of the establishment?-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:6052 WP No. 28145 of 2013 C/W WP No. 51374 of 2013
13. The appointment letter is undisputed. Ex.W1 would clearly indicate that the initial employment was only for a period of 6 months. Thereafter, no formal letter of appointment was issued or there was no formal letter extending the tenure of the employment. However, fact remains that, from 1994 upto 2005, the workman has worked under the employer. There is nothing on record to indicate that after the expiry of initial six months he was again made to believe that his extension is only for a period of six months or for some other limited period. It is also an admitted fact that from time to time, there was hike in the salary and later, the salary paid to the workman was on par with the minimum wages payable to such workman.
14. Learned counsel for the employer would refer to Ex.W8, which is of the year 2002, which indicates that the contract has been extended. It is relevant to note that the tenure of the service is not specified in the said document.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6052 WP No. 28145 of 2013 C/W WP No. 51374 of 2013 Again it is a borne out from the records that even after 2002, the employee has worked till 2005.
15. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that, the nature of the employment cannot be termed as a contractual employment with a specific time frame for the employee to exit. The conduct of the employer made the respondent/employee to believe that the employment is permanent.
16. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that, the contention of the employer that the respondent/employee is not entitled to any benefit other than the retrenchment compensation has to be rejected.
17. As far as the contention relating to the quantum of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by the Labour Court is concerned, it is urged that the compensation awarded is on the higher side and there could be only retrenchment compensation. In this regard, the contention could have been accepted provided the employer has accepted the workman as his employee and has offered
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6052 WP No. 28145 of 2013 C/W WP No. 51374 of 2013 retrenchment compensation by passing an order of retrenchment. No such order has been passed. Without following any procedure contemplated under Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the 'Act', 1947) the employee was not allowed to work from a particular date in the year 2005. Under these circumstances, the Labour Court is justified in awarding compensation.
18. As far as the contention of the employer, the benefit which has been extended to other employees should be extended to the present employee is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the employer, there is nothing on record to show that the post of telephone operator was a post, sanctioned in by the employer.
19. Learned counsel for the employer submits that, the CAT has passed an order for regularization of other employees noticing the fact that, they were working under sanctioned posts. Since the workman here was working as
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6052 WP No. 28145 of 2013 C/W WP No. 51374 of 2013 a telephone booth operator and considering the nature of the establishment, it appears that the post was not a sanctioned post and the facility of telephone booth was extended to provide some telephone facility for the inmates of the campus of the Sports Authority of India in Bangalore at that given point of time.
20. Later the public telephone booth became obsolete because of advancement of technology as such, the employer had to terminate the services. As already noticed, the procedure is not properly followed and accordingly, the compensation is awarded.
21. This being the case, the claim of the employee that he has to be reinstated treating him on par with the other employees has to be rejected.
22. As far as the compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the employee in the alternative would submit the compensation awarded is inadequate and there has to be escalation in the compensation. Applying the formula under Section 25(f) of the Act, 1947, the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6052 WP No. 28145 of 2013 C/W WP No. 51374 of 2013 employee would have received Rs.25,000/- as retrenchment compensation. While awarding compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, the Labour Court has opined that Rs.5,00,000/- compensation would earn around 45,000/- towards interest per annum.
23. It is an admitted factual position that, the employee was getting a salary of Rs.4,360/-. The Labour Court has taken this aspect into consideration and awarded Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. The compensation so awarded in the year 2013 appears to be a reasonable compensation, in the facts and circumstances of the case taking into consideration, the salary of the employee.
24. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, Rs.2,50,000/- is already deposited by the employer pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court. The said amount along with interest shall be released in favour of the respondent/employee and balance amount of
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6052 WP No. 28145 of 2013 C/W WP No. 51374 of 2013 Rs.2,50,000/- will be deposited along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum awarded by the Labour Court.
25. With these observations, both the writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE KBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15