Karnataka High Court
The Management Of vs Mr Hanumantha Raju on 11 July, 2018
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.32406/2017 (L-TER)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.53612/2016 (L-TER)
W.P.No.32406/2017
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S SANKHLA INDUSTRIES,
SURVEY NO.127, BUDIHAL VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU-562123
REP. BY ITS MANAGER-ADMIN
MR.T.S. RAMA CHANDRAN
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ANAND K R, ADV.)
AND:
MR. HANUMANTHA RAJU
C/O BANGALORE KARMIKA SANGHA,
ADARSHA NILAYA,
NO.8, RAJAGOPALANAGARA MAIN ROAD,
PEENYA 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560058
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MR.N.SHIVANNA
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V S NAIK, ADV. )
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH
THE AWARD DTD.30.01.2016 AT ANNEX-C PASSED BY THE ADDL.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN AID NO.5/2014.
2
W.P.No.53612/2016
BETWEEN:
MR. HANUMANTHA RAJU
S/O SRI BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
C/O BANGALORE KARMIKA SANGHA,
ADARSHA NILAYA,
NO.8, RAJAGOPALANAGARA MAIN ROAD,
PEENYA 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560058
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI V S NAIK, ADV. )
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S SANKHLA INDUSTRIES,
SURVEY NO.127, BUDIHAL VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU-562123
BY ITS PARTNER
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ANAND K R, ADV.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO CALL FOR
THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE ADDL. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AT ANNEX-G AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner in W.P.No.32406/2018 is the management while the petitioner in W.P.No.53612/2016 is the workman. The parties are referred to as 'the management' and 'workman' respectively wherever the context so admits since they are differently arrayed in both these petitions.
2. The workman claiming to be aggrieved by the action of the management in refusing employment with effect from 29.09.2012 had raised a dispute which came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru and was registered in AID No.5/2014. The Industrial Tribunal through its award dated 30.01.2016 has held that the management is not justified in refusing employment to the workman and has directed that he be reinstated. The management claiming to be aggrieved by such award dated 30.01.2016 has filed the instant petition. The workman being aggrieved that the consequential benefits 4 and the backwages has not been ordered through the award has assailed that portion of the award. It is in that light both these petitions are considered together.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.
4. The contention as put forth on behalf of the management is that the very claim of the workman that he was denied work on 29.09.2012 would not be justified and in that light the contention would have only been with effect from 01.10.2012. That apart it is contended that the workman himself was not diligent in attending to work and therefore no claim could be put forth. It is pointed out that though notice had been served on the management in the proceedings before the Labour Court and had appeared through the counsel, due to inadvertent mistake they had not participated in the proceedings. Therefore, the Labour Court taking into consideration the 5 oral evidence tendered by the workman as WW.1 has accepted the same and has arrived at its conclusion which is erroneous.
5. Learned counsel for the workman would however seek to sustain the award insofar as the grant of reinstatement. It is his contention that the management at this juncture cannot put forth any contention with regard to the lack of opportunity and even otherwise when there is no additional material produced before this Court to sustain their action, the award to that extent in any event is justified. It is his further contention that in a matter where the Labour Court had arrived at the conclusion that the refusal of employment was not justified and when reinstatement had been granted, the consequential benefits also should have been awarded. In that light it is contended, to that extent a modification is required.
6
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the papers, even if the evidence tendered by the workman as WW.1 is taken into consideration and in that light the nature of the proceedings before the Labour Court is noticed, essentially it is merely the oral evidence of the workman that has weighed with the Labour Court. It is no doubt true in the absence of the other evidence to the contrary the Labour Court was justified to accept the same. However, in a circumstance where the management is pleading that an opportunity be granted as they did not avail such opportunity at the first instance, certainly when factual aspects are required to be considered by the Labour Court an opportunity is required to be granted. However, such opportunity can only be granted on terms as otherwise the workman who would be put to hardship by going through the proceedings once over again cannot 7 go without any succor when at the first instance the award has been in his favour.
7. In that circumstance though at the first instance based on the award passed on the reinstatement this Court had granted interim order subject to compliance of Section 17B wages, at this stage when the award is being set aside, continuing the very same order would not be justified. However, the workman having succeeded at the first instance when he has to go through the proceedings once over again he should be adequately granted some amount atleast by way of interim relief when the matter is pending before the Court below.
8. In that light, the management shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court until the same is concluded. Such payment shall be diligently made every month without committing any default. Further, even 8 before the commencement of the proceedings before the Labour Court, the cost of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the workman and only then the Labour Court shall proceed further with the matter.
9. To enable the same, the award dated 30.01.2016 passed in AID No.5/2014 is set aside. All contentions are left open. The proceedings in AID No.5/2014 is restored to the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal without issue of fresh notice on 06.08.2018. The Labour Court shall thereafter regulate the proceedings and conclude the same in accordance with law.
The petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/bms