Karnataka High Court
Sitaram Nagappa Naik vs The Management Of on 21 July, 2017
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.63576/2010 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
SRI SITARAM NAGAPPA NAIK,
AGE 48 YEARS,F OCC:NIL,
R/O GUNDENGUDDI,
TQ:KUMTA DIST:KARWAR. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ANANTH P.SAVADI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE MANAGEMENT OF
DEPUTY CONVERSATE OF FOREST,
KARWAR DIVISION, NAKOLA.
2. THE SECRETARY,
FOREST DEPARTMENT,
ARANYA BHAVAN, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVI V.HOSAMANI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD
MADE BY THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI, IN REF.
NO.158/98, DATED:16/09/2008, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-R BY
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO PAY FULL BACK WAGES TILL
THE DATE OF RETIREMENT OF THE PETITIONER WITH ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL FRINGE BENEFITS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the award dated 16.09.2008 passed in Reference No.158/1998.
2. The petitioner was before the Conciliation Officer raising a dispute contending that his termination from service with effect from 31.05.1994 was not justified. The conciliation having failed, a reference under Section 10 (1)
(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act was made to the Additional Labour Court, Hubballi, in Reference No.158/1998. The Labour Court, Hubballi, through its award dated 16.09.2008 has rejected the reference.
3. A perusal of the award passed by the Reference Court would indicate that the issues that had been raised for consideration was, whether the claimant is a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and as to whether the Forest Department is an 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequentially, the 3 consideration relating to the validity of the termination was made as the third issue. In that light, having taken into consideration the evidence tendered by WW-1 and also the witness on behalf of the Management, the Labour Court has arrived at the conclusion that the issues 1 and 2 is to be held in the negative i.e., the workman was not a workman and that the Forest Department cannot be considered as an 'industry'. It is in that view, the Reference has been rejected.
4. At the outset, what is necessary to be noticed is that in a Reference under Section 10 (1) (c), essentially the Reference as made by the Government to the Labour Court is what is required to be answered by the Labour Court. The other issues to be framed are only incidental and it would be related to the Reference. In the instant case, it is seen that based on the pleadings, the issues have been framed and have been answered. The very fact that the Reference was made by the Government would 4 indicate that prima facie the person who had raised a dispute was workman and as such had sought for the relief.
5. Be that as it may, when it is contended that he was working as a driver, the conclusion that he is not a workman would not be justified. The other issue no doubt is with regard to whether the Forest Department is an 'industry'. On that aspect, the consideration to be made and the nature of evidence to be tendered has already been taken note by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. B.Y.PATIL (1999 (4) KLJ 441). Therefore, the consideration in that regard is required to be made. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the decision of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of DEVRAJ GUPTA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS (LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL CASES 2015 PAGE 3537). In the said case, the consideration that arose was in the background 5 of the decision pending for consideration before a larger bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD VS. A.RAJAPPA AND OTHERS (1978 (2) SCC 213) and holding that pending consideration thereto, reliance is to be placed on the said judgment.
6. Therefore, these are all aspects which are required to be kept in view by the Labour Court and a consideration in that required is required to be made. While reconsidering, the parties are also required to tender evidence not only with regard to the nature of activities but also on the claim relating to the period for which the petitioner had discharged the services in the respondent establishment and in that regard if the contention as putforth by the petitioner is to be countered, it would be open for the respondents to produce the necessary records before the Labour Court and tender evidence. To enable the parties to tender such evidence and the Labour Court 6 to take a decision in the matter, the award dated 16.09.2008 is set aside, the Reference No.158/1999 is restored to the file of the Labour Court.
7. At this stage, it is submitted that since at present the Labour Court has been established at Belagavi, the instant matter will have to be considered therein. To enable the same at the first instance, it is directed that the Additional Labour Court, Hubballi, shall restore Reference No.158/1998 to its file and thereafter transfer the same to the Labour Court at Belagavi wherein the same shall be registered, fresh notices be issued to the parties and the matter be considered in accordance with law. All contentions of the parties are left open.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Jm/-