The State Of Karnataka vs Sri M R Nataraju on 7 August, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

The State Of Karnataka vs Sri M R Nataraju on 7 August, 2012

Bench: Subhash B. Adi

                             1

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

          DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B. ADI

           WRIT PETITION NO.45799/2011(L-TER)

BETWEEN :

1       THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
        REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
        AGRICULTURE, HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT
        M.S.BUILDING
        BANGALORE

2       THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
        DRY LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
        NANJANGUD TALUK
        MYSORE DISTRICT

3       THE DISTRICT WATERSHED
        DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
        MYSORE AND KODAGU DISTRICT
        MYSORE
                                  ...PETITIONERS

            ( BY SRI. JAGADISH MUNDARAGI, AGA )

AND :

SRI M R NATARAJU
S/O RACHAIAH, AGED 44 YEARS
(FOREST DEPARTMENT)
MELLAHALLI
VARUNA HOBLI
                               2

HAROHALLI POST
MYSORE-570 010
                                           ...RESPONDENT

        ( By Sri. VIGHNESHWARA S. SHASTRI, ADV., )

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE AWARD DATED 14.1.2003 PASSED IN I.I.D NO.207/1999
BY THE HON'BLE LABOUR COURT, MYSORE VIDE ANNEXURE-
A, ETC.,

    THIS PETITITON IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B'GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

This writ petition is by the State questioning the award in I.I.D. No.207/1999 dated 14th January 2003 produced at Annexure `J`.

2. Though several contentions are raised by the learned Government Advocate, however, his main contention is that the State, which is the employer, has not been made party before the Labour Court. As such, the matter is covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in ILR 2004 Kar 225 in the matter of THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE 3 ENGINEER Vs. J. MAHADEVAIAH AND ANR..

3. However, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is a delay of eight years in filing this writ petition as the award is passed on 14.01.2003, whereas, this writ petition is filed on 9th December 2011 and in such a case, there is no need to go into the question as to whether the State is a necessary party or not.

4. It is not in dispute that the respondent - workman had worked for 10 years in the petitioner - State. No doubt, he has not worked against any clear vacancy. Even otherwise, the nature of work discharged by the respondent does not warrant direction for reinstatement. Merely because the State is not a party, it is not suffice to remand the matter after a lapse of nearly nine years from the date of the award. But, the ends of justice would be met if the State is directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent - workman in lieu of reinstatement and backwages and in full 4 and final settlement of the claim of the respondent.

Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mysore, in I.I.D. No.207/1999 dated 14.01.2003 stands modified. The respondent - workman is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) in lieu of reinstatement and backwages and in full and final settlement of the claim of the respondent.

Sd/-

JUDGE sma

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court