Karnataka High Court
M/S Cbm International Christoffel ... vs Ms G Suganthi on 24 July, 2012
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.Sreenivase Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2012
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA
WRIT APPEAL No.16511/2011
AND
WRIT APPEAL No.3876/2012 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
M/S. CBM INTERNATIONAL
CHRISTOFFEL BLINDENMISSION
SOUTH ASIA REGIONAL OFFICE
(REGISTERED LIAISON OFFICE)
NO.4, 1ST CROSS, 1ST BLOCK
RAJMAHAL VILAS EXTENSION
ASHWATH NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 094
NOW LOCATED AT:
NO.140, COMMERCE CUBE
2ND FLOOR, PUTTANACHETTY ROAD
CHAMRAJPET, BANGALORE-560 018
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ASSISTANT REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
2
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGER-ADMIN AND FINANCE
... APPELLANT
(By Sri. M.R.C. RAVI, Adv.)
AND:
MS. G. SUGANTHI
AGE 44 YEARS
D/O LATE SRI. GREGORY
NO.203, 5TH MAIN (G FLOOR)
15TH CROSS, II BLOCK
R.T. NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 094
ALSO R/AT NO.287
1ST MAIN, 5TH CROSS
R.R. LAYOUT, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 016
... RESPONDENT
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NO.25816/2006(L-TER) C/W WRIT PETITION
NO.6235/2006(L-TER) DATED 04.08.2011.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, K.L.MANJUNATH, J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
These appeals are preferred being aggrieved by the common order passed in W.P.No.25816/2005 connected with W.P.No.6235/2006 dated 04.08.2011.
2. The facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder:
According to the Appellant, it is a Charitable Organisation and the Appellant / Trust was operating at Thrichinapalli in Tamilnadu. Respondent was appointed as Accounts Secretary with effect from 18.01.1991 since the branch office of the Trust at Thrichinapalli was closed, she was re- appointed on 16.02.1996 at Regional Office of Bangalore. She worked in that post till 12.12.2001. Aggrieved by the order of termination dated 12.12.2001, the respondent raised a dispute before 4 the Labour Court at Bangalore in I.D.No.21/2002 contending that the order of termination is bad in law and that, she is entitled for re-instatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The appellant contends that as per the appointment order dated 17.02.1996 the appointment of respondent was purely a temporary and it was subject to funding by the CBM Germany. On account of global recession, CBM Germany did not continue the funding to the appellant and on account of the same, the order of termination was issued by settling the amounts payable by the appellant to the respondent and requests the Court to dismiss the application.
The Labour Court considering the length of service put in by the respondent came to the conclusion that the order of termination is illegal and on the principle of "no work, no pay", back wages 5 was not ordered. Being not satisfied with the order of the Labour Court, the appellant filed W.P.No.25816/2005 and similarly, the respondent filed W.P.No.6235/2006 for having denied the back wages. Therefore, the learned single Judge clubbed both the writ petitions and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent holding that she is entitled for back wages of 50%. Therefore, the present appeals are filed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L & S) 1436 (Municipal Council, Samrala -vs- Sukhwinder Kaur) contends that, in view of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the order of the learned single Judge has to be set aside by holding that terminal benefits 6 extended by the appellant to the respondent would satisfy the requirement of law.
4. Having heard the counsel for the appellant, we do not see any merits in these appeals for the following reasons:
Admittedly, the respondent was appointed as Accounts Secretary at Thiruchinapalli Branch on 18.01.1991 on account of the closure of the branch at Thiruchinapalli. She was immediately re-
appointed as Accounts Secretary at the Regional Office of the Trust at Bangalore on a fixed remuneration with an yearly increment with effect from 17.02.1996. When the respondent has worked from 18.01.1991 to 12.12.2001 for more than a decade, her appointment cannot be termed as purely temporary in nature and order of retrenchment cannot be made. There is nothing on record to show 7 that funding is stopped by CBM Germany even if there is no funding by CBM Germany, it is not the case of the appellant that the appellant is not running the institution. Therefore, considering the background of this case and the facts involved in the Municipal Council, Samrala, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be made applicable to the present case. In the circumstances, we do not see any merits to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge as the learned single Judge has considered each and every point canvassed by the appellant.
5. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Dh