Karnataka High Court
The Management Of M/S Fine Prints(P) Ltd vs Mr Sharanappa S H S/O Shivappa on 8 July, 2011
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH 'COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KAKNAIARA MIGHT wenn wr rereer ie IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DATED THIS THE 8™ DAY OF JULY, 2011 BEFORE yey . IT ION NO. 12569 OF 2010 ti weit nS | PETITION NO. 18748 OF | G10 TER | W.P.12569/ 20 10: MENT OF M/S 1} NO. ac I eyecapcsice SUBURB. AGED ABOUT 40 ; sat NO.2, SRD E" CROSS C/O THIMMEGOWDA .. RESPONDENT.
THIS W.P FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RD PASSED IN REF.NO. 24/2005 BY THE RT, BANGALORE DATED yet a * HYG HB OOOH EG TOL OOS BOOM, " QONSTITUTION OF I
-- DAY, THE c Q URT HGH COURT OF KARNATAKANIGH COUKI OF RAKNAILABA FMT GUUIE UT RARIMALAR A PEPE T Wet MINE GR EMORINE TER ROGER LEER Bete MEK Ree ba IN WP NO 18748 OF 2010:
R/AT NO.2, 3RD 3
GORAGUNTEPALYA, BANGALORE 560 022.
(By Sri. V5) JULA N KULKAE RNY, ADV.) :
bbe punt THE : NT OF Mj & FINE PRINT (P LTD NO. 106, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, ~~ aND STAGE TUMEUR ROAD, | BANGALORE 22, .
BY 11 MANAGING DIRECTOR . RESPONDENT.
(By SEE N.&, RAR bills, ADV. FOR ENTIRE REC LORDS FROM THE I Since the employer and employee have separately Veer ep. ee aei date' £oO on a called in question the award dated 5.2.2010 im pet ra IONE.
4 my ' procesding before 1 .. damage. to. the property belon "gubmit his resignation from service. That led to yet HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT GF KARNAIAKA HIGH CUOUKI OF KRAKNAIAKA MIGM LUUKE UP RARMAIABRA Milan 6 3 3, Petinoner worl to have been. illegally refused s employment from 31.08.2004 > and» thereafi 'he employer, on notice of the said compiaifit, submitted a reply denying refusal of employment cr rémnovai. from the rolls, much ne. 7 at was contended that In Labour Officer, on 17.09.2004, the .worlunat itted hie guilt of causing to his employer of the e1 t the method of submitting the P | 2%, [ eee ots en, a witer em the cenetie toet would oe as a Paste-up Artiet under his an in W.P.18748/2010, while... Pejari, 'Production.
" 31.08.2004 and ac 4IGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA MIGM GUURT vr naniensmnes oe 4 available, on acceptance of the resignation, in addition ser on 17.09.2004.
Labour ment, by order dated 16.08. 2005 » veder etre ial dia pute for adjudicat tion petor e the Labour, a tered as Kefere nce » No.24/ 2008. > Te employrnent. The. empbyer é was. examined. ee red es Exhibits point of reference in thon for 'the employer to refuse employment with effect from ly directed reinstatement with 50% backwages for the period from 1 September 2004 to : whether the. employer had refused employment, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURL UP RARMNALARA Tingrr wun wer teen with continuity of service i counsel for the employer r contends 'that . of the Labour Court over refusal of _ nt and the conclusion directing reinstater i 'benefits 'and continuity 1 having £ filed to iy en to duty eter io ada equentia! heisefite. Learned counsel | t material constituti that in the abkserice of rele ence of the fact im weue as to we over the point of reference, ie., aye a HE HE liGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNALALA FGM GUI Wr mearawenirares co eesers Oy somduct causit s loss to the employer is in itself a metance by which one can infer that the workazast . to report to duty and therefire be , the te was not allowed Labour Court v conch uding that the send ¢ counsel employer wae did rot report io tion was cast on the ¢ employer to issue a duty, an obl ; upon the wor. cs mar to report to duty, 7 did not' repo port to duty, it was that the work eireumstances of the case, the Labour Court is justified in recording a finding that the employer refused.
7 did not t refuse, employ: ment, while on 17.09.2004, . thoretary benefits. There is no materiel evidenc MIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH - COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH GCOUKI OF KARNAIABA HIGr COUKI Vr RAKNALGR® PIG GWU T Wr RARMALARa Ninn & vig BS service?
6. In the factual before the Labour Division|, "Exhibit W-l, interles m the matter of granting i1efits of ployment duc'. Ja "refusal ° of" employment from the detaile of 31.08.2064. That 'led to re "proceed which acre : not forthooning from the recorda except an tion Exhibit wa aotmitted by the employ remen an admitted hia guilt over the damage caused to ese) of the stated would not report to duty but 4 resignation 6o as to se support of the said assertions. The proceeding recorded {Ge COURT OF KAR DUATAICAM IG rE Gwe bl XE Wer BRAKRMALAIGA, PRG WU EGET INF E EER LORE GO EERE Fak GEN Se Ra NE KER ORR wow & Was mot 4 by the Labour Officer joned by either. of ;, nor certified copies placed on record. ~ _ | by from 31.08.2004, without any justification. - He That wes by filmg counter sixtement "denying the apires that during the pendency of of + Labour Court; im 1 specific stand-of the employer that the report to duty; he: dia 80, of.5.1 .2006 the Producti workman » remained unauthorisedly absent from after 31.08.2004, having remained tember 200 unauthotisedly absent, initiated the conciliation ing contending that there was refusal of os oral anid' docur evidence 6 aif & the . to duty _ award, \ HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT UF KAKNAIABRA FIIGM CUUKI UP RARMAIARA TIEUTT UWUR ET Wr Keanreareames panaesr 9 its to have not issued a tion of causing damage to the property being printing material. | Tie : -
st this evidence, the work ed, reiterated hia conte: entic 0 . 'of refi srit. In the cross nothing incrieninating iz 'eotabliched | aa dis inclination *.to 4 report i.) duty, as also, gainful employment from Septentiiber. 2004 to D aid evidence both
10.In the. backdrep of the afo:
impugned, extensively had re i one question at Paragraph 10 of tl NGM COURT OF KAKNAIAKAMIGr UMUR I UP RARMNALABRA THT WUE WIT PASAT ATOR FRESE TD WP EN WE EMPRASE MR RENO BEDE Harte me RS Be EERO AT Ng EEK BBE Wa EB Mao i Oe 10 "Ae stated above, the only question 2 We hat ary rty is entitled for backwages ?"
for consideration is, whether firet...-
11. At the & t the work which was denied by the employe er, State Government while re ré fering the i indnotrial dispute, drafted the point of reference as , uader: 2 "Whether oh the: fy second party Managernert i -justifi ed. in refusing employment to the J effect from 31.08.2004?"
not ihe first time that this Court come across incorrect drafting of the points of dispute by the State a wid its authority. It is patent that from the resisted by the
i) rument to have lover, it wae for the Labo.
| : drafted the point of dispute placing the burden on the a oe a eee letn amertantingn af T1 ont eh ae ms workman to prove his contention of Mlegal refusal of Ssempliysniiee | So also the direction of prov ager MiG GOUUERT GP RARNALAIRA MBEGM-GOUKT OP TOARBATAKA AIGR COURT Ol KOARINATARA MiGMN COURT Ol MARNATAIA HIGMN COURT OF KAKNATAKA HIGH € noticed supra arui the direction of establish was oo refusal of loyrm by the erplayer. ; "Merely . ide that the 1c workman: had ion of of which the employer ea, by itself and rie thing moré cannot : to. deaw, en "peifer ustitute eeseritial The employe: could otk have placed 8 any better meter the explana' ation ¢ 1 adie baton 2 the Labour © t instance over « + deny ition of refusal of ctosé-examination, nothing incriminating is elici refusal of employ evidence is the oral testimony of wan which is self-interested testimony. In the . absence of evidence to corroborate the eviderice of WW-1 my opinion, there is no credible evidence to prove the duty, ie ' os Satter of fact, that the employer refused employment to i FEED Ger A VACATE wi WE ARTAIARE, CAS WWE VP RAR ALARA PMT GUUI VE MANRINALABRA Might CUUKI UF KOKNAIAKA MIGH COL 13 In tl v of the ing carmot but be.
racterised as per from 1.9.2004 upto. 5 51,2008, we art to duty sentitied to the benefit of continuity of. servic ice, consequeritial iso full wages :
dj te: the f fact that the employer did upon. the work That} ded period « of: two. years from 1.9,2004 till the to. "the Labour Court dur ember 2095, whence the wor! "over re fusal of f emp ployment. It may be possible that = to accept as a the workmen.
RIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUKI OF KAKNAIABA PIGI GUURE WP RAIMA LAB THSITT Wii he E FEE PUPAINESEREPRTMER FRENEE Be 13 with of coritir ity ai service. wii thout and award. "of | Jumpsust One. Lakin only) allowed in part anid the award modified in supra.
Co mpliance within four weeks.