Karnataka High Court
S Chandrashekhara Sharma vs C Krishnaiah Chetty Jewelers Private ... on 4 October, 2016
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.8085 OF 2013 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
S. CHANDRASHEKHARA SHARMA
S/O SRI SANTHOSH KUMAR SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
NO.812, PRAKASH NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 021
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.SUBRAMANYA BHAT FOR M/S SUBBA RAO AND
CO., ADV.)
AND:
C.KRISHNAIAH CHETTY JEWELERS
PRIVATE LIMITED
JEWELERS, SILVERSMITHS AND
DIAMOND MERCHANTS
NO.36, COMMERCIAL STREET
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.S.N.MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.SOMASHEKAR, ADV.,)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 22
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DT:15.01.2013 IN REF.NO.38/1999
2
ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDL. LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE MARKED AT ANN-K AS THE SAME SUFFERS
FROM ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF
THE RECORD.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
A reference made by the Government on 16.03.1999 in exercising the power vested in it under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act i.e., at the instance of the petitioner was registered as reference No.38/1999 by the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru. By reason of an order dated 26.05.2006, the reference was rejected and the same was assailed in WP No.752/2007. By reason of an order dated 07.03.2012 the writ petition was allowed and the impugned award was set-aside and the case was remanded for adjudication and disposal on merit. 3
2. I.A.No.7 was filed in the reference by the first party - workman, to permit him to lead his further evidence. Said application having been objected to by the Management on the ground that no liberty was given by this Court to the parties to lead evidence and Labour Court having rejected I.A.No.7 with cost vide order dated 15.01.2013 as at Annexure-K, this writ petition was filed to quash the said order.
3. Heard Sri.M.Subramanya Bhat, learned advocate for the petitioner and Sri.S.N.Murthy, learned Senior advocate for the respondent and perused the record. Point for consideration is whether the impugned order is arbitrary and liable to be quashed?.
4. The order passed on 07.03.2012 in WP No.752/2007 vide Annexure-G has attained finality. The reference having been taken up for consideration on merit, I.A.No.7 was filed. In view of the case having 4 been remanded to the Labour Court, it has the obligation to permit both parties to adduce further evidence and decide the case. Both parties are entitled to lead further evidence. The workman is entitled to lead evidence with regard to his gainful employment or otherwise i.e., after he was terminated from service by the 2nd party - Management. The impugned order is arbitrary. The Labour Court has adopted a pedantic approach.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order as at Annexure-K is quashed. I.A.No.7 filed in the reference pending before the Court below is allowed. The workman shall adduce and complete his side of evidence within a period of four weeks from the first date of appearance before the Labour Court. Soon after the workman closes his case the Management may adduce and complete its side of evidence within a period 5 of four weeks and the case shall be decided by the Labour Court with expedition and within a period of six weeks thereafter.
In order to expedite the consideration and disposal of the case, both the parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 24.10.2016 and receive orders. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH