Karnataka High Court
M K Gopala vs The Managing Director Kptcl on 23 February, 2016
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NOs.52440-52445/2013
C/w.
WRIT PETITION NOs.3602-3603/2015, 53188/2013
&
31193-31194/2015 (L-TER)
IN W.P.NOs.52440-52445/2013:
BETWEEN:
1. M.K.GOPALA,
S/O KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT MAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
VAGATA POST,
JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
2. N.C.DEVARAJU,
S/O CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT C/O AVALAPPA,
DODDAHULLURU,
DASARAHALLI POST,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISRICT.
3. CHIKKAIAH.H.S.,
S/O SHEERABOLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT HAROSHIVANAHALLI,
ELAGALLI POST, UYYAMBALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
2
4. KUMARA.H.,
S/O HANUMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NASEPALYA,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
5. SURESH.K.,
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO.22/A, 9TH CROSS,
2ND MAIN ROAD,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,
BANGALORE-560 086.
6. MURTHY.K.,
S/O KALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3194, 2ND CROSS,
RAJOTHSAVA NAGARA,
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 078. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.K.SRINIVASA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE-560 009.
2. THE DIRECTOR (ADMN. & HR) KPTCL,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE-560 009.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
BESCOM, K.R.CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560001 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.HARIKRISHNA.S.HOLLA, ADV. FOR R1 & R2;
SRI.P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R3)
3
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD IN REF.
No.53/2011, DATED 30.03.2013, PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE VIDE
ANNEXURE-F TO THE W.P., ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.,
IN W.P.NOs.3602-3603/2015:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.K.MAHADEVAIAH,
S/O LATE KARIYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT GOWDAGERE POST,
SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
2. SRI.M.YUVARAJ,
S/O RANGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT NO.249,
VENKATARAMANAGARA,
DEVANATHACHARI STREET,
7TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.K.SRINIVASA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE-560 009.
2. THE DIRECTOR (ADMN. & HR) KPTCL,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE-560 009.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
BESCOM, CORPORATE OFFICE,
K.R.CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560001 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.HARIKRISHNA.S.HOLLA, ADV. FOR R1 & R2;
SRI.P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R3)
4
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD IN REF.
No.51/2011, DATED 30.03.2013, PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE VIDE
ANNEXURE-C IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE
CONCERNED AND ETC.,
IN W.P.NO.53188/2013:
BETWEEN:
M.D.NAGARAJ,
S/O LATE DEVARAJE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO.5, 1ST CROSS,
KATERAMMA LAYOUT,
VARANASI @ JINKETHIMMANAHALLI,
T.C.PALYA POST, K.R.PURAM,
BANGALORE-36. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.K.SRINIVASA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE-560 009.
2. THE DIRECTOR (ADMN. & HR) KPTCL,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE-560 009.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
BESCOM, K.R.CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560001 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.HARIKRISHNA.S.HOLLA, ADV. FOR R1 & R2;
SRI.P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE, IN REF NO.50/2011, DATED
5
30.03.2013 AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD IN
REF. No.50/2011, DATED 30.03.2013, PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE VIDE
ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,
IN W.P.NOs.31193-31194/2015:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.SOMASHEKAR.D.,
S/O DYAVALINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
BIJJAHALLI POST,
KODIHALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
2. SRI.RAJU.C.,
S/O CHIKKERAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
SANGAMA ROAD, KURUPETE,
KANAKAPURA,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.K.SRINIVASA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE-560 009.
2. THE DIRECTOR (ADMN. & HR) KPTCL,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE-560 009.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
BESCOM, CORPORATE OFFICE,
K.R.CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560001 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.HARIKRISHNA.S.HOLLA, ADV. FOR R1 & R2;
SRI.P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R3)
6
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD IN REF.
No.52/2011, DATED 30.03.2013, PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE VIDE
ANNEXURE-F TO THE W.P., ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND REMAND THE
MATTER BACK TO THE LABOUR COURT FOR FRESH
CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN TERMS
OF THE ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-H DATED 02.07.2015.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
IN W.P.NOs.52440-52445/2013:
The petitioners are before this Court assailing the award in Reference No.53/2011 dated 30.03.2013 as at Annexure-F to the petitions. The petitioners in that light are seeking issue of mandamus to reinstate the petitioners back into service.
2. Though several contentions have been urged by the learned counsel for the parties, what is necessary to be noticed is that this Court while considering a similar contention as putforth by the petitioners herein in W.P.Nos.44794-44812/2013 disposed of on 02.07.2015 had taken note of the conflicting awards being passed in similar set of circumstances and in that 7 view, taking note of the contentions that had been putforth therein, was of the opinion that when similar issues are raised and the facts and circumstances of the decision as made in I.D.No.5/2005 and Reference Nos.10/2012, 11/2012, 52/2011 is to be taken into consideration. The consideration in that regard is as to whether the workmen concerned had worked for 240 days in a given year. It is in that view, to record a finding in that regard, keeping in view the nature of the consideration that had been made in the earlier proceedings, this Court had set aside the award and remitted the matter to the Labour Court for fresh consideration after providing opportunity to the parties to tender evidence in that regard.
3. In view of such consideration made by this Court, a similar consideration would require in the instant case as well. Therefore, applying the said order, the award dated 30.03.2013 passed in Reference No.53/2011 herein is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court to restore the reference, provide 8 opportunity to the parties to tender evidence and thereafter, pass fresh award in accordance with law.
4. The learned counsel for the parties indicate that the connected matters before the Labour Court is listed on 30.03.2016. Hence, the Labour Court shall restore and take up the instant reference also on the said date. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 30.03.2016 without issue of fresh notice from the Labour Court.
Petitions are accordingly disposed of. IN W.P.NO.3602-3603/2015:
The petitioners are before this Court assailing the award in Reference No.51/2011 dated 30.03.2013 as at Annexure-C to the petitions. The petitioners in that light are seeking issue of mandamus to reinstate the petitioners back into service.
2. Though several contentions have been urged by the learned counsel for the parties, what is necessary to be noticed is that this Court while considering a 9 similar contention as putforth by the petitioners herein in W.P.Nos.44794-44812/2013 disposed of on 02.07.2015 had taken note of the conflicting awards being passed in similar set of circumstances and in that view, taking note of the contentions that had been putforth therein, was of the opinion that when similar issues are raised and the facts and circumstances of the decision as made in I.D.No.5/2005 and Reference Nos.10/2012, 11/2012, 52/2011 is to be taken into consideration. The consideration in that regard is as to whether the workmen concerned had worked for 240 days in a given year. It is in that view, to record a finding in that regard, keeping in view the nature of the consideration that had been made in the earlier proceedings, this Court had set aside the award and remitted the matter to the Labour Court for fresh consideration after providing opportunity to the parties to tender evidence in that regard.
3. In view of such consideration made by this Court, a similar consideration would require in the instant case as well. Therefore, applying the said order, 10 the award dated 30.03.2013 passed in Reference No.51/2011 herein is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court to restore the reference, provide opportunity to the parties to tender evidence and thereafter, pass fresh award in accordance with law.
4. The learned counsel for the parties indicate that the connected matters before the Labour Court is listed on 30.03.2016. Hence, the Labour Court shall restore and take up the instant reference also on the said date. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 30.03.2016 without issue of fresh notice from the Labour Court.
Petitions are accordingly disposed of. IN W.P.NO.53188/2013:
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the award in Reference No.50/2011 dated 30.03.2013 as at Annexure-D to the petition. The petitioner in that light is seeking issue of mandamus to reinstate the petitioner back into service.11
2. Though several contentions have been urged by the learned counsel for the parties, what is necessary to be noticed is that this Court while considering a similar contention as putforth by the petitioner herein in W.P.Nos.44794-44812/2013 disposed of on 02.07.2015 had taken note of the conflicting awards being passed in similar set of circumstances and in that view, taking note of the contentions that had been putforth therein, was of the opinion that when similar issues are raised and the facts and circumstances of the decision as made in I.D.No.5/2005 and Reference Nos.10/2012, 11/2012, 52/2011 is to be taken into consideration. The consideration in that regard is as to whether the workmen concerned had worked for 240 days in a given year. It is in that view, to record a finding in that regard, keeping in view the nature of the consideration that had been made in the earlier proceedings, this Court had set aside the award and remitted the matter to the Labour Court for fresh consideration after providing opportunity to the parties to tender evidence in that regard. 12
3. In view of such consideration made by this Court, a similar consideration would require in the instant case as well. Therefore, applying the said order, the award dated 30.03.2013 passed in Reference No.50/2011 herein is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court to restore the reference, provide opportunity to the parties to tender evidence and thereafter, pass fresh award in accordance with law.
4. The learned counsel for the parties indicate that the connected matters before the Labour Court is listed on 30.03.2016. Hence, the Labour Court shall restore and take up the instant reference also on the said date. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 30.03.2016 without issue of fresh notice from the Labour Court.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. IN W.P.NOs.31193-31194/2015:
The petitioners are before this Court assailing the award in Reference No.52/2011 dated 30.03.2013 as at Annexure-F to the petitions. The petitioners in that light 13 are seeking issue of mandamus to reinstate the petitioners back into service.
2. Though several contentions have been urged by the learned counsel for the parties, what is necessary to be noticed is that this Court while considering a similar contention as putforth by the petitioners herein in W.P.Nos.44794-44812/2013 disposed of on 02.07.2015 had taken note of the conflicting awards being passed in similar set of circumstances and in that view, taking note of the contentions that had been putforth therein, was of the opinion that when similar issues are raised and the facts and circumstances of the decision as made in I.D.No.5/2005 and Reference Nos.10/2012, 11/2012, 52/2011 is to be taken into consideration. The consideration in that regard is as to whether the workmen concerned had worked for 240 days in a given year. It is in that view, to record a finding in that regard, keeping in view the nature of the consideration that had been made in the earlier proceedings, this Court had set aside the award and remitted the matter to the Labour Court for fresh 14 consideration after providing opportunity to the parties to tender evidence in that regard.
3. In view of such consideration made by this Court, a similar consideration would require in the instant case as well. Therefore, applying the said order, the award dated 30.03.2013 passed in Reference No.52/2011 herein is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court to restore the reference, provide opportunity to the parties to tender evidence and thereafter, pass fresh award in accordance with law.
4. The learned counsel for the parties indicate that the connected matters before the Labour Court is listed on 30.03.2016. Hence, the Labour Court shall restore and take up the instant reference also on the said date. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 30.03.2016 without issue of fresh notice from the Labour Court.
Petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST