Karnataka High Court
Bharat Earth Movers Ltd vs Mr.H N Dhanapal S/O H S Nanjappa on 18 July, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.34892 OF 2009(L-TER)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.18612 OF 2010(L-TER)
WP.NO.34892 OF 2009:
BETWEEN:
BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LTD.,
(BEML LTD.,),
BELAVADI POST,
MYSURU - 186,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER (IR). ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI N.S.NARASIMHA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR.H.N.DHANAPAL
AGED MAJOR,
S/O H.S.NANJAPPA,
RESIDING AT NO.245,
M.N.P.M. COLONY,
OPPOSITE TO HULIKERE,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.S.NAIK, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD PASSED IN
I.I.D.NO.111 OF 2003 BY THE LABOUR COURT, MYSURU
DATED 06.03.2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
*****
WP.NO.18612 OF 2010:
BETWEEN:
MR.H.N.DHANAPAL
S/O H.S.NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.245,
M.N.P.M. COLONY,
OPPOSITE TO HULIKERE,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI V.S.NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LTD.,
(BEML LTD.,),
BELAVADI POST,
MYSURU - 186,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI N.S.NARASIMHA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE LABOUR
3
COURT, MYSURU PERTIANING TO ANNEXURE-A. QUASH
THE AWARD DATED 6.3.2009 PASSED BY THE LABOUR
COURT, MYSURU IN IID.NO.111 OF 2003, THE CERTIFIED
COPIES OF WHICH ARE MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A TO THE
EXTENT THE PETITIONER IS AGGRIEVED ETC.,
*****
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The case of the workman is that he was selected as an 'Apprentice-Trainee' with Bharat Earth Movers Limited, Mysuru, on 14.10.1995 and had to undergo training for a period of one year. While undergoing training, due to an accidental injury his right thumb was amputated. He requested for a lighter work. The same was granted. Without any reason on 01.04.2003, the management refused to provide work to him.
4
2. The dispute was brought under Section-10- 4(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Labour Court. By the impugned order, the Labour Court allowed the dispute in part and directed the Management to reinstate the workman to service, to the post last held by him at the time of his termination and also directed payment of 25% backwages from the date of termination till his reinstatement.
3. Questioning the grant of reinstatement and backwages, the Management has filed W.P.No.34892 of 2009. Seeking enhancement of backwages the workman has filed W.P.No.18612 of 2010.
4. Sri.N.S.Narasimha Swamy, learned counsel appearing for the Management contends that the workman was a Trainee. That substantial material has been led-in to show that he was a Trainee. That the law is well-settled that as a Trainee, the question of reinstatement to service or grant of backwages or granting any such relief would 5 not arise. That the workman himself has written letters at Exhibits-M20 that would indicate that the workman has requested to continue his post as a Trainee. Hence, the Labour Court erred in granting reinstatement of service to the workman.
5. On the other hand Sri.V.S.Naik, learned counsel appearing for the workman disputes the same. He contends that the workman was working with the Management since 1995. Therefore, the question of holding him as a Trainee was improper. Infact, he was discharging the duties as a permanent employee. He does not dispute the letters said to have been written by the workman. However, he contends that the letters have been extracted by the Management from the workman by force. That this act of extracting is an unfair labour practice. Therefore, such letters cannot be held against the workman. Therefore, he pleads that the writ petition be allowed by enhancing the backwages.
6
6. Heard learned counsels and examined the records.
7. The Labour Court while considering the plea of the workman came to the conclusion that even though the workman continued to work as a Trainee, but actually he worked with the second party for more than 8 years. This itself was sufficient to show that he was not working as an Apprentice throughout but was given different kinds of work as certified by the second party. This in my considered view, runs opposite to the documents relied on by the Management, which are the letters written by the workman at Exhibit-M-20.
8. I have perused the said documents. They are letters written by the workman seeking for extension of the training period. He has also stated that he would not claim any permanent job. There are almost 8 such letters. They are written in the handwriting of the workman himself. Therefore, to now contend that the letters were 7 forced upon him and he was compelled to write the same cannot be accepted. It was not a stray writing in a blank document. There are almost 8 letters and therefore the same should be given value and due weightage must be attached to the letters. They cannot be brushed aside merely because a contention is raised. Therefore, the contention that the workman was forced to write such letters cannot be accepted.
9. Even otherwise, the material on record with reference to the evidence led-in and the Exhibits clearly indicate that the workman is a Trainee. That he is not appointed to a permanent post. The Exhibits also display the position of the workman as a Trainee. The workman being a trainee, the impugned order of the Labour Court runs opposite to the facts of the case.
10. Accordingly, W.P.No.34892 of 2009 filed by the management is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.03.2009, in I.I.D.No.111 OF 2003, passed by the 8 Labour Court, Mysuru vide Annexure-E is set-aside. Rule made absolute.
The writ petition in W.P.No.18612 of 2010, filed by the workman being devoid of merit is dismissed. Rule discharged.
SD/-
JUDGE JJ