Karnataka High Court
Food Corporation Of India vs The Regional Secretary on 13 June, 2014
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
WRIT PETITION NO.19068 OF 2014 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
NO.10, REGIONAL OFFICE
EAST END MAIN ROAD
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 041
REPRESENTED BY
THE GENERAL MANAGER (KARNATAKA).
.... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S.SRINIVASA MURTHY, ADV.)
AND:
THE REGIONAL SECRETARY
FOOD COPORATION OF INDIA
EXECUTIVE STAFF UNION
K.R.PURAM COMPLEX
VIJANAPURA, DOORVANINAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 016.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.SUBBA RAO, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI.SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADV.,)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.2.2014 VIDE ANN-X PASSED
2
ON AN APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER
SECTION 10(4) READ WITH SECTION 11 OF INDUSTRIAL
DISPUTE ACT IN CR NO.10/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT BANGALORE AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
I have heard Sri.S.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.Subba Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an excess payment of HRA to the employees working in Food Corporation of India, Bangalore. Therefore, FCI initiated proceedings against them for recovery of excess payment of HRA. Since the conciliation failed, the matter was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour 3 Court, Bangalore, (for short 'Labour Court), wherein it has been numbered as CR.No.10/2013. In the said case, the Labour Court passed an interim order restraining the respondent therein from making recovery of the HRA said to have been paid in excess pursuant to the order dated 04.08.2009 on the condition that each employee shall file an undertaking that in the event of rejection of the reference they shall pay the excess amount with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till actual payment/recovery.
3. It is argued that excess payment is a public money and the FCI should be permitted to proceed with the recovery of the amount paid in excess. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others (reported in 2012(8) SCC 417). 4
4. On the other hand, Sri.K.Subba Rao, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the order impugned is only an interim order. The main matter has not been adjudicated so far. It is submitted that FCI cannot recover the excess amount paid to its employees towards HRA, as the said order will put the workman in extreme hardship.
5. It is not in dispute that the order at Annexure - X is only an interim order. In Chandi Prasad Uniyal's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardship but not as a matter of right. The Tribunal has to examine as to whether the case can fit into the few exceptions enumerated in the said decision. As noticed above, the order impugned is only an interim order. Therefore, I decline to interfere 5 with the same. The Court below is directed to dispose of the reference in CR No.10/2013 as expeditiously as possible and not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE SA*