Karnataka High Court
The Transport Co-Operative Society ... vs Sri H N Ramesh on 31 October, 2022
Author: S.G. Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.42109/2015 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE TRANSPORT CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LIMITED
P.B.NO. 28
KOPPA - 577 126
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR.P. GODWIN JAYAPARAKASH
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SOMASHEKAR, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI H.N. RAMESH
S/O NAGAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT B.HOSUR
HOSUR VILLAE
BANDIGADI POST
KOPPA TALUK - 577 126
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
PRESIDING OFFICER
MADHUVANA LAYOUT
CHIKKAMAGALUR TOWN
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.N.SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADV. FOR C/R1
SRI M.V.RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R2)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DTD: 27.11.2009 IN DISPUTE DATED:27.11.2009
PASSED BY R-2 AT ANNX-K TO THE W.P. AND QUASH THE
ORDER DTD: 14.8.2015 IN APPEAL NO.02/2010 (CS) PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE K.A.T. AT ANNEXURE-U AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner-Society is before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 27.11.2009 in Dispute No.KRC/DDS/05/2005-06 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure-K) and also to quash Annexure-U, order dated 14.08.2015 in Appeal No.02/2010 (CS) passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal [for short 'the Tribunal'].
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Somashekar for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri.N.Shankaranarayana Bhat for Caveator/respondent No.1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent was a Class-C member 3 to the petitioner-Society and he ceased to be a member from 04.01.1993, since the bus in which first respondent was working was sold. Learned counsel would submit that the first respondent raised a dispute before the second respondent under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 [for short 'the Act'] alleging termination and claimed for continuation of service as well as financial benefits. The said dispute was allowed directing the petitioner-society to reinstate respondent No.1 with all consequential benefits. The said order of the second respondent was taken in appeal before the Tribunal in Appeal No.02/2010 and the said appeal was dismissed and order of second respondent was confirmed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly contend that the first respondent was not an employee of the petitioner-society and no material also placed on record to establish that respondent No.1 was the employee of petitioner-society except, the order passed in a proceedings arising under the Minimum Wages Act. 4 Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement and other consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Society would submit that during the pendency of the writ petition, the first respondent attained age of superannuation. The respondent No.1 would not be entitled for the backwages since the first respondent was gainfully employed as LIC Agent. Inviting attention of this Court to Annexure-Q dated 14.05.2015, he submits that the first respondent was an LIC Agent from 15.12.1999 and he was receiving more than Rs.15,000/- as commission income from LIC. He also invites attention of this Court to Annexure-R and submits that the first respondent was Member of Chairman Club of LIC. Thus, he submits that respondent No.1 was gainfully employed as LIC Agent and he would not be entitled for backwages.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.N.Shankaranarayana Bhat for respondent No.1 would not deny that the first respondent was an LIC Agent from December 1999. However, he submits that 5 the first respondent would be entitled for backwages from 1993 at least till the first respondent enrolled himself as LIC Agent in December 1999. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the first respondent had not any employment nor he was gainfully employee, which made him to enroll himself as LIC Agent. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of writ petition papers, I am of the view that the petitioner would be liable to pay backwages to the respondent No.1 from 1993 to December 1999 till he enrolled himself as LIC Agent.
7. There is no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner-society that the respondent No.1 was not an employee of the petitioner-society. The respondent No.1 had raised a dispute before the Labour Officer and Authority under the Minimum Wages Act at Chikkamagaluru in Case No.9/1994. The Labour Officer 6 and the Competent Authority allowed the said case, against which the petitioner-Society preferred W.P.No.4960/1996 which was dismissed on 24.07.1996 and writ appeal filed against the Single Judge's order in W.A.No.7910/1996 was also dismissed on 06.11.1996. Thus, the order passed under the Minimum Wages Act has become final wherein there is a finding that respondent No.1 was the employee of the petitioner- society. The second respondent based on the material made available including the order passed under the Minimum Wages Act, held that the respondent No.1 was the Member/employee of the petitioner-society and was working in the petitioner-society. The Tribunal in its order dated 14.08.2015 has observed that the petitioner-society never contended before the Labour Court that respondent No.1 has never been its employee. It is contended that the respondent No.1 was working on temporary basis and never worked continuously. The second respondent as well as the Tribunal based on the material available have come to 7 the conclusion that the respondent No.1 is the employee/labour of petitioner-society which needs no interference.
8. With regard to backwages, it is to be noted that there is no dispute that respondent No.1 was enrolled as LIC Agent from 15.12.1999. Annexure-P, document would establish that the respondent No.1 was working as LIC Agent from 15.12.1999 and he was receiving commission from LIC of India. Annexure-P, letter dated 29.05.2012 of LIC of India would indicate that for the period from 2005-06 to 2012-13, respondent No.1 has received Rs.1,98,327/- to 5,12,932/-, between the above stated period as commission. Annexure-R would indicate that respondent No.1 was Chairman Club Member Agent of LIC. Therefore, respondent No.1 would not be entitled for backwages from 15.12.1999 onwards since the petitioner gainfully engaged as LIC Agent. The first respondent was denied work from 14.06.1993 to 15.12.1999, there is no material to indicate or to 8 establish that respondent No.1 was working elsewhere or gainfully employed. Since the respondent No.1 had no employment, it made him to enroll himself as LIC Agent in December 1999. Since the first respondent was not gainfully employed during the period from 14.06.1993 to 15.12.1999, he would be entitled for 50% of backwages.
With the above, writ petition stands disposed of. The petitioner-society shall settle the claim of the respondent No.1 within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE NC.