Karnataka High Court
Chandrakanth Joshi S/O Maruthirao ... vs The Executive Engineer Ors on 20 February, 2023
-1-
WP No. 82340 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 82340 OF 2011 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
CHANDRAKANTH JOSHI
S/O MARUTHIRAO JOSHI
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. H.NO. 11-1806, VIDHYA NAGAR BEHIND
S.B. COLLEGE GULBARGA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI P. VILASKUMAR SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI NITESH,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD DIVISION OFFICE,
YADGIR DIST. YADGIR
Digitally signed by
KHAJAAMEEN L 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
MALAGHAN PWD SUB-DIVISION JEWARGI,
Location: High DIST. GULBARGA
Court of Karnataka
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
COMMUNICATION AND BUILDING (NORTH)
DHARWAD
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3,
ADVOCATE)
-2-
WP No. 82340 of 2011
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR SETTING ASIDE THE AWARD OF
LABOUR COURT GULBARGA PASSED IN KID NO.459/1999 AND
REF.NO.53/2001 DATED 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2010 WHICH
IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE
PETITIONER WITH FULL BACK WAGES, CONTINUITY OF
SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri.P.Vilas Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Shivakumar R.Tengli, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 3.
02. The petitioner in this case is assailing the order of the Labour Court, Gulbarga in KID No.459/1999 and reference No.53/2001. In terms of impugned judgment dated 06.12.2010, the petition filed under Section 10(4-A) of Industrial Dispute Act is rejected. The petitioner made a claim before the Labour Court that he was illegally terminated by the respondents on 01.12.1988. It is claimed that the petitioner is -3- WP No. 82340 of 2011 an engineering graduate and was working on daily wages under the supervision and control of respondents No.1 and 2. He claimed that he was appointed on 01.12.1985 and has worked without break for more than 240 days and he was illegally terminated from service without notice and without wages in view of notice. He contends that the termination is contrary to the mandate of Section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act.
03. The petitioner further claimed that because of paucity of funds and forced unemployment he was under
tremendous mental stress and could not approach the competent authority immediately after his termination.
04. The petitioner's claim is seriously disputed by the respondents. His educational qualification is disputed and also his claim as daily wager from 01.02.1985 is also disputed.
05. The Tribunal allowed the parties to lead evidence in support their respective claim. On consideration of evidence before the Court, the Tribunal has concluded that petitioner has proved relationship between respondents and himself as employer and employee.
-4-WP No. 82340 of 2011
06. The respondents also led evidence and produced Exs.M1 to M8. These records according to them would also indicate that the petitioner was not working for more than 240 days continuously. However, the document at Ex.W1 i.e., letter dated 15.05.1987 would indicate that the petitioner was working as graduate trainee since February, 1985 and the Ex.W2 would also indicate that the petitioner has received wages for 230 days from 1982 to 1988. Based on these documents the Labour Court has concluded that the claimant did work under the respondents. The Labour Court has also concluded the termination of the petitioner is illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act. However, the Labour Court has also taken into consideration that the claim for setting aside the order of termination was made after 12 years. The Labour Court has concluded that the claim is not made within a reasonable time and the claim is hit by delay and latches. The Labour Court on the ground of delay and latches, has declined to grant the relief in favour of the petitioner.
07. The learned Senior counsel Sri.Vilas Kumar. P. appearing for the petitioner would contend that the order impugned is illegal and while rejecting the claim the Labour -5- WP No. 82340 of 2011 court has overlooked the material fact that no limitation is prescribed to make a claim.
08. In the alternative, learned Senior counsel would also place reliance on the judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.81383/2011. By referring to this judgment, he would submit that atleast reasonable compensation should have been awarded to the petitioner.
09. Sri.Shivakumar R. Tengli, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit there are no materials placed before this Court to hold that the petitioner was employed for more than 240 days under the respondents and the Labour Court has rightly held that the petitioner has not proved his case and has rightly declined to grant any relief. He would further submit that there is inordinate delay in filing the petition and petitioner is not entitled to any compensation as the facts obtained in W.P.No.81383/2011 are different from the facts of this case.
10. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and also perused the records.
-6-WP No. 82340 of 2011
11. The Labour Court has analyzed the materials placed before the Court and has rightly concluded that the petitioner was employed under the respondents as daily wager and his termination is illegal. The records would indicate that the petitioner was working from 1985 to 1988. That is the finding of the Labour Court as well.
12. Considering the fact that the petitioner was working from 01.12.1985 to 01.12.1988 following the ratio laid down in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Ghanshyam dass (2) and others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 374, this Court is of the view that Rs.2 lakhs should be awarded as compensation to the petitioner.
13. It is made clear that in the event of compensation of Rs.2 lakhs, not paid to the petitioner within two months from today, the compensation shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from this date till the date of payment.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ List No.1 Sl.No.1