M/S Sun And Ski Exports Pvt Ltd vs Shri P K Sujith on 7 December, 2009

[Cites 5, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Sun And Ski Exports Pvt Ltd vs Shri P K Sujith on 7 December, 2009

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 200.9
BEFORE E E

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHADI'   --

WRIT PETITION NO. 15084 JOE 20(§8"{'!;[-PG)::  E  

BETWEEN

M/S SUN & SKI EXPORTS PVT [LTD
NO.104/2A, TAVAREKERE MAIN~«RO.AD
TAVAREKERE  
BANGALORE -- 560 029,   . A  ' "
BY ITS CHIEF' EXECU'I'IV'E.AO_F§'7_ICiE.'R "  _
SHRI. ANIL SHANKAR A '  ' ,"1».....f'RET1TIONER

[BY SR1 J   

AND:

1 SHR1. RK. --SIJ'J:I*E'I-i'«..__  
s/O KRISHNAN' , .-- V  O.
NO. 26';'~wLA1';sVHM1~._NIVAs
A _;5Th ACROSS. ,1 1TH MAIN
v-  SRINIVASA LA'ff.'JUT
, v. 3 1¥ONC.ASANDRA
* _ "BANGALORE ~ 560 068

2 V ' 'Assisa-fA_.R'T LABOUR COMMISSIONER
""---DI'.f°ISIFJN--4, KARMIKA BHAVANA
151" RLOOR, BANGALORE DAIRY CIRCLE
..  BANNERGHATTA ROAD
"BANGALORE -- 560 029  RESPONDENTS

E [BY SR1 JAGADISI-I MUNDARGI, GA FOR R2 E SR1 T PUTTASWAR/IY, ADV. FOR R1] M 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF' INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT. 28.7.2008 AND ENDORSEMENT DT. 21.11.2008 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY. DIVISION---4, KARMIKA BHAVANA, BANGALORE APPENDED TO THIS PETITION AS ANENXURIDA AND RESPECTIVELY.

'HﬂSPEHHON,COMDK}ONFOREREHEQ3NGfEn IN'T? GROUR THﬁ3£mW'THE COURT MADE THEN» A FOLLOVHNG: I '' ORDERRT"

Having heard the 1earne.d"~'oounse1_ 1'o1j2Vthe:..;I5a1*ties, the short question that_arises** Sdecisiodnmaiting is, "Whether the app1icationA_"ﬁ:le2d' petitioner on 21.10.2008 _ of the Karnataka Payment' ofé' 1973 was barred by limitation?

I I _ 2' 5The'i'1indis1jtited facts are that, the order dated

- A under submrule (4) of Rude 11

2 _ was the Controlling Authority under the vI'a.y:{nent~---of Gratuity Act, 1972, in the absence of the I -_p'eti'tio'ner, and was not communicated to him. 5*';

3 However, the petitioner when informed of the said order by the Advocate for the respondent on 13-10-2008 to comply with the order and make payment'."'--,pof Rs.1,80,770/-- as gratuity, led to the petitioner~«fiIing_tang"

application to set--aside the ex parte order 0

3. According to Sri. Kanikaraj, the petitioner, the crucial' be_»"'V'ta.1:(:er1 for computing 30 days from the of to be the date of comxnunicvaticn df "o.r_de1°~tand if so done, the application under {,~:3) 11 would be weli within, the of» __ci'ays.

4. Irrﬁaimotst '4'ider1pt'ica1 circumstances, a similar prov.isioni'~of law'-..t1nde,r the Minimum Wages Act read .VAn:dh_ra:""'Pradesh Minimum Wages Rules, 1960, wh¢'n.~c¢tn§§i:1e'rj§¢i by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Cin 15. 0. r»gURUGA?PA MUDALIAR vs. AUTHORITY it laépomran UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT1. it Hi' ?...A:R19e5 AP433 4 following the reported opinions of the Madras High Court, heid that the mere passing of an order under Rule 34(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Minimum Wages Rules, will not start limitation against an affected.'"

and that limitation will begin to run onl.},z,Iwheri::' l party had notice or knowledge formally communicated to .hin__1 or"

facts of that case, it was held the party did not have notice or parte order passed to his de-trimeri't"-by' under Rule 34(2) and f¢:agmf§i§g only when it was communicated to and therefore, the periodof 1irriitation,'--of"~one"lVmonth prescribed by sub-rule "{4} Wouldhegin to run against him only from the application made on 7--1l--1963 was»..,4loefo;'e'ft;he expiry of one month from 12--l0~1963. that-sriew of the matter, the Andhra Pradesh High A further held that the order passed rejecting the Lei 5 application for reconsideration, was in clear Violation of law and was accordingly quashed.

5. Rule 11(5) reads thus:

"11[5). If the employer ._ to appear on the specified:;.ldat_e"of after due service of notice cause, the Controlling'~...V_ Authiorityl»l_lrIi_§€ry*» proceed to hear the application ex failsulto appear on the .1/_'of'_"_hearing without gvsuiﬁcierggt gca.us.¢;"~./,l'the' 'Controlling Authority". rnajifi the "application:

1' 'order under this sub» rule rnlaypon. "good cause being shown within days of said order, be reviewed and ,th--e__'appAli'eation reheard after giving not less days notice to the opposite A"~«.._pav1jty.Vo~f the date fixed for rehearing of the application."

Having regard to sub--rule (5) of Rule 11 of the Karnataka Payment of Gratuity Act, 1973, which is similar to sub--rule (4) of Rule 34 of the Andhra Pradesh Minimum Wages Rules, as extracted in the reported_ opinion in D. Murugappa Muda1iar's case, _ same reasons as are stated thereinitime _-b"egi-n'_s,to. run "

only from the date of communication ~the'order sub-rule (4) of Rule 11 of thellliiiles. In the petitioner came ,.1;e "_of-»..pthe' "or.der.f§ dated 28.7.2008 Annexure and the application for .review before the Controlling the period of limitationilof-3:65,daifsj' "

7. The ansizverfto Vthe' question is in the negative and iendorsenientgidated 20-11-2008 AnneXure--"B" of;"t~he Conttrolling Authority is arbitrary, illegal and deserves» to'.'}3ep'ginterfered with. x 8.'v..-The writ petition is allowed in part. The e._"end'orsement dated 20--1i-2008 Annexure--"B" is it -qtiashed and the proceeding remitted for consideration iii afresh by extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and to pass OI'd€1jS:,.. §1j1 accordance with law.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court