Karnataka High Court
M/S Hittco Tools Ltd vs S.V. Govindarju on 1 March, 2017
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
W. P. No.63663/2016 (L-RES)
BETWEEN
M/S HITTCO TOOLS LTD.,
NO.78, III PHASE
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA
BANGALORE-560078
REP BY ITS ONE OF THE
DIRECTOR MR. SATISH S.R. .. PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA.B-ADV)
AND
S.V. GOVINDARAJU
S/O T VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
NO.66, SEERESANDRA
BYATHA POST
HESARAGHAATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE-560089 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.SUBBA RAO-SR. ADV FOR
SRI. B.D.KUTTAPPA-ADV FOR
M/S SUBBA RAO & CO)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 29.9.2016 ON IA-4 PASSED BY THE I
ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN ID NO.12/2013
VIDE ANNEX-F.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR 'HEARING ON
IA' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The petitioner-employer is before this Court calling in question the order passed by the Labour Court on I.A.No.4 in I.D.No.12/2013.
3. The short point that arises for consideration is, whether the Labour Court was right in concluding that the respondent-workman was not in gainful employment despite the admission of the respondent/workman that he is working along with his father-in-law?
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation - vs - M.Nagangouda reported in (2007) 10 SCC 765. He would contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the law that agricultural pursuits also could be equated with gainful employment and the receipts from such pursuits would constitute income generated from a gainful employment. In view of the law laid down, the issue is no longer res integra.
3
5. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/employee would rely on the another ruling of the Apex Court in Rajinder Kumar Kindra - vs - Delhi Administration Through Secretary (Labour) and Others reported in (1984)4 Supreme Court Cases 635 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as follows :-
"In support of this submission Mr. Jain pointed out that the appellant in his cross-examination has admitted that during his forced absence from employment since the date of termination of his service, he was maintaining his family by helping his father-in-law Tara Chand who owns a coal depot, and that he and the members of his family lived with his father-in-law and that he had no alternative source of maintenance. If this is gainful employment, the employer can contend that the dis-missed employee in order to keep his body and soul together had taken to begging and that would as well be a gainful employment. The gross perversity with which the employer had approached this case has left us stunned. If the employer after an utterly unsustainable termination order of service wants to deny back wages on the ground that the appellant and the members of his family were staying with the father-in-law of the appellant as there was no 4 alternative source of maintenance and during this period appellant was helping his father-in-law Tara Chand who had a coal depot, it cannot be said that the appellant was gainfully employed.
6. From a reading of the aforesaid rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is apparent that with regard to the concept of gainful employment, it is settled law that agricultural pursuits also constitute employment and the income from agricultural pursuits constitute gainful employment. The law settled by the Apex Court is not in dispute. In the instant case, the petitioner/employer is relying on a statement by the workman in the course of cross examination wherein he has stated that he is working along with his father-in-law and that there are four cattle which yields about 30 litres per day and it is sold at Rs.24/- per litre and that there is one acre of agricultural land. What is to be noted is that there is not even a suggestion regarding the quantum income that is earned by the workman. Neither is there a suggestion that either the cattle or the land is owned by him.
7. Though such a submission is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the course of 5 arguments, the same requires to be rejected in the absence of any cogent or corroborative material.
8. A reading of the evidence would perse demonstrate that the workman is working for his father- in-law and if the statements in the cross examination are taken to be true, 30 litres of milk sold at the rate of Rs.24/- per litre would constitute income at the rate of Rs.720/-. There is no material to demonstrate as to what is the size of the father-in-law's family, how many dependents are there, expenses incurred for the up-keep and maintenance of the cattle and what is the amount to be paid to the petitioner. In the absence of such material, I do not find any merit in the case of the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the respondent/workman is residing along with his father-in-law only. It is not in dispute that the enquiry held by the employer is held to have been not fair and proper. In such circumstance, the law entails that the workman shall be entitled for the interim maintenance and the Tribunal exercising its discretion has assessed the interim relief at Rs.7,000/- p.m. But 6 while so doing, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the fact of the petitioner rendering service in the dairy business being run by this father-in-law.
10. Hence, in the opinion of this Court ends of justice would be met if the order is modified and an amount of Rs.6,000/- p.m. is fixed as interim relief pending disposal of the award.
The First Addl. Labour Court is however directed to expedite the hearing and disposal of the Reference in I.D.No.*12/2013, at any rate it shall endeavour to hear and dispose of the case on or before 31.8.2017.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE rs *Corrected vide Court order dated 27.3.2017