Smt S Vani vs The Management Of on 24 April, 2018

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt S Vani vs The Management Of on 24 April, 2018

Bench: L. Narayana Swamy

                            1



   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018

                          BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY

        WRIT PETITION Nos.63271-63272/2016 (L-RES)

BETWEEN:

Smt. S. Vani
W/o Sri.Vijayakumar,
Aged about 31 years,
Residing at C/o Rathanachari,
1st Main, 1st Cross,
Lakshmi Sagara,
Opp. to Whitefield Road,
Mahadevapura Post,
Bengaluru - 560 048.
                                        ... Petitioner
(By Sri.A.J.Srinivasan, Advocate)

AND:

The Management of M/s. Arvind Limited
Represented by the Personal Manager
No.55, Puttappa Industrial Estate,
Whitefield Road, Mahadevapura Post,
Bengaluru - 560 048.
                                      ... Respondent
(By Sri. Santhosh Narayan S., Advocate)

       These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of Constitution of India praying to set aside the award
dated 19.07.2012 passed by the II Additional, Labour
Court, Bangalore in Ref.No.19/12 vide Annexure - A and
etc.
                              2




      These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in
'B' Group, this day, the Court made the following:

                          ORDER

Reference made by the Government of Karnataka dated 28.04.2012 was numbered in Reference No.19/2012 on the file of the Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court at Bangalore, came to be rejected by order dated 27.05.2016. It is stated while dismissing the reference that the notice was sent to the first party through RPAD to the address mentioned in the reference order. But the same was returned unserved with an endorsement that 'insufficient address'. Further it has been recorded no useful purpose would be served by taking steps in the present matter. Therefore, the Miscellaneous petition filed to recall the order also came to be dismissed on 27.05.2016.

2. Learned counsel submits that the address as mentioned in the reference made by Government of Karnataka is the same address for which the notice was sent but the same was returned with an endorsement 3 'insufficient address' made by the postal authorities. Therefore, the endorsement made by the postal authority is not proper. The learned counsel submitted that the order passed is erroneous not only in law but on facts and therefore matter needs to be remanded. The petitioner would prove its case in order to satisfy the reference. The learned counsel referred the judgment of this Court in the case of The Management of the Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Karkhanne Ltd. V/s State of Mysore reported in 1968 ILR 669 marked at para as under:

"Rule 10B of the rules made under Section 38 of the Act prescribes the procedure to be adopted by the Tribunal when a reference is made to it and the scheme of that rules makes it clear that the tribunal must make a pronouncement on the validity of the claim made by one part and repudiated by the other. Although Rule 23 empowers the tribunal and the other authorities enumerated therein, to proceed ex-parte when one of the parties to the proceedings before it fails to appear, the scheme of the Act and the Rules makes it obvious even though a party is placed exparte, the tribunal must pronounce on the dispute and record its findings with respect to that matter".

3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits for dismissal of the writ petition and submitted that in case if it is remanded as prayed by the petitioner it is only a vexatious proceedings and to substantiate the same learned counsel submitted as per Ex.R6 the petitioner was employed between 01.05.2012 and 31.05.2012. Since the petitioner was gainfully employed, question of reference does not arise and consequently respondent sent notice on 22.05.2010 directing the petitioner to report for duty, the same has not been responded.

4. Heard learned counsel on both the sides.

5. There is a reference made to lower court on an issue. The notice was sent to address furnished by the petitioner but the same returned with endorsement 'insufficient address'. Under the provisions of CPC if notice is returned it would be held sufficient but it is not entirety applicable to the industrial proceedings. When notice is sent to addressee and if it is returned with shara 'insufficient address', it is for the Labour Court to take steps and to inform and in case if the notice is not served 5 as per Rule 22 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1955, there shall be adjudication. When a reference is made to it, the same has to be adjudicated. The rejection of reference on the ground of court notice returned unserved is contrary to Rule 22 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957.

6. Hence, the order passed by the Lower Court dated 27.05.2016 made in Ref.No.19/2012 is set aside and both the parties to appear before the Labour Court without awaiting any notice on 06.06.2018. The Labour Court is directed to dispose of the reference on merits as expeditiously as possible. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE UN

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court