Karnataka High Court
M/S. Kanoria Plaschem Limited vs Mr. S. B. Krishna on 29 June, 2018
Author: Raghvendra S.Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra S. Chauhan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
Review Petition No.643/2017
In
Writ Petition No.16066/2017
BETWEEN :
M/S. KANORIA PLASCHEM LIMITED
NO.121A, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
HEBBAGODI VILLAGE,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 099,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SRI SIDDARTH KANORIA. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADV.)
AND:
MR. S. B. KRISHNA
MAJOR,
C/O. KARNATAKA WORKERS UNION,
NO.20/1, LALBAGH FORT ROAD,
V. G. GOPAL BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 004. ... RESPONDENT
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 AND SECTION 151 OF CPC R/W. ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO REVIEW
THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2017 PASSED IN W.P.NO.16066/2017
AND ETC.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
2
ORDER
The present review petition has been filed against the order dated 26.10.2017, whereby this Court had allowed the application (I.A.-1/2017) filed by the respondent-workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act", for short), and had directed the petitioner to pay the last wages to the respondent as drawn by him on 06.09.2013, i.e., the date prior to his termination. This Court had also directed that arrears of wages shall be paid from the date of passing the award till 26.10.2017. This Court further directed the petitioner to pay last wages to the petitioner during the pendency of writ petition.
2. Mr. Somashekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that although there is no error apparent on the face of the order dated 26.10.2017, but still this Court should refer the case to the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, to examine the contents of Annexures- 'K', 'M', 'N', and 'Q', and to submit its report to this Court within a reasonable period.
3
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-workman submits that in the order dated 26.10.2017, this Court had already expressed its opinion with regard to Annexure-'K'. Furthermore, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the learned counsel pleads that the review jurisdiction should not be exercised by this Court in order to review the order dated 26.10.2017.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the order dated 26.10.2017.
5. A bare perusal of the order dated 26.10.2017, clearly reveals that the petitioner had submitted Annexure-'K', a report, in order to buttress its plea that some detectives had met the petitioner in a restaurant, to whom the workman had revealed that he was supplying construction materials for building, and he is in contact with reputed builders. However, when the Court perused the said Annexure, this Court observed that Annexure-'K' is neither signed by any person, nor any person's affidavit has been 4 produced by way of evidence, which would prove the contents of Annexure-'K'. Moreover, although the report claims that there were audio-video CD's, no such audio- video CD's were found by this Court. Therefore, this Court declined to accept Annexure-'K' in order to deny the benefit of Section 17B of the Act to the respondent-workman.
6. Since this Court had discussed the validity, veracity, and genuineness of Annexure-'K' as a doubtful document, this Court had refused to rely on the said document. Hence, this Court had elaborately discussed the evidence that was produced before it. Thus, there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 26.10.2017.
7. Hence, this review petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Np/-