Karnataka High Court
R. K. Hegde vs Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation ... on 4 October, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 1298
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.44637/2016 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
R.K.HEGDE
S/O. KUPPA HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
POST:HEGDE,
KUMTA TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 330. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.R K HEGDE, PARTY IN PERSON)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.
HEBBAL,
BANGALORE,
BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. DEPUTY CONTROLLER
STATE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.N.S.NARASIMHA SMAMY, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI.GIRIKUMAR, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DTD:4.6.2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE 1ST ADDITIONAL
2
LABOUR COURT IN APPLICATION NO.20/2007 [ANNEXURE-J].
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE AMOUNT AS PER THE
CALCULATION STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE COURT
COMMISSIONER [CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS]I.E., ANNEXURE-
G. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE ALONG WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 18% P.A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY AFTER HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 06.03.2018, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-party-in-person being aggrieved of the order dated 4.06.2016 in Application No.20/2007 by the Labour Court, Bengaluru. By the said order, the Labour Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(C)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming an amount of RS.15,53,490/- with interest at 18% per annum with costs.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was an employee of the first respondent Corporation. He was dismissed from service, against which, he filed I D No.112/1988, which was allowed on 5.10.1998 directing reinstatement with 50% back 3 wages and also to pay consequential benefits. The said order was subject matter of W P No.22089/1999 at the instance of the respondent. By the order dated 17.2.2005, writ petition was rejected subject to modification of the order relating to reinstatement as the respondent Corporation was closed in 2003. This order passed in the writ petition was unsuccessfully challenged in W A No.2969/2005, which came to be rejected on 06.04.2006.
3. On 17.11.2006 the first respondent paid Rs.6,05,777/- towards payment of terminal/VRS benefits as per the calculation arrived at by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner filed W P No.7939/2007 which came to be disposed of observing that appropriate course is to avail the remedy under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The petitioner filed Application No.20/2007. The first respondent took gross salary of Rs.805.25 in March, 1982 as against Rs.958/-, which is claimed to have admitted by representative of the first respondent. The Labour Court rejected the Application by the order dated 4.12.2008. The petitioner filed W P No.3199/2009 and by the order dated 4 4.12.2008 this Court quashed the order of the Labour Court and matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
4. After remand, the Labour Court by the order dated 18.11.2010 again dismissed the application. The petitioner filed W P No.557/2011 which was allowed by the order dated 15.07.2011 and matter was remanded for fresh hearing. After remand, a Chartered Accountant was appointed as Court Commissioner to give report regarding actual amount due to the petitioner. The Court Commissioner gave detailed report on 8.2.2013 that petitioner is entitled to total amount of Rs.15,56,437/-. The Labour Court by the order dated 19.2.2015 dismissed the Application No.20/2007.
5. Challenging the order dated 19.2.2015, the petitioner filed W P No.16084/2015 and this Court by the order dated 11.1.2016 remanded the matter with a direction that the voluntary retirement scheme of the year 2003 shall be accepted as applicable to the petitioner. The Labour Court by the order dated 4.6.2016 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Hence this writ petition.
5
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned order.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount paid by the first respondent is not as per the award passed by the Labour Court. The representative of the first respondent admitted that in March, 1982 the gross salary of the petitioner was Rs.958/- but the first respondent had taken Rs.805.25, which is not considered by the Labour Court. The benefit of LTC and bonus though admitted by the said representative, it is not considered by the Labour Court. The first respondent ought to have paid the amount as per new scale and Ex gratia amount from 6.9.2003 to 14.5.2008. The respondents have taken 28 years and paid only 50% of the gratuity instead of paying gratuity amount of 14 years after excluding the period of dismissal. The Court Commissioner has given report that the petitioner is entitled to certain amount, which ought to have been paid to the petitioner. The voluntary retirement scheme of the year 2003 is said to be applicable to 6 the petitioner and without following the said direction of this Court, the Labour Court has dismissed the application.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsels for the respondents supported the order passed by the Labour Court. The petitioner having failed to produce documents before the Labour Court regarding non consideration of benefits of voluntary retirement scheme of 2003, not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
9. It is not in dispute that a sum of Rs.6,05,777/- is paid to the petitioner as per the calculation made by the State Accounts Department after making admissible deductions. This Court in W P No.16084/2015 (L-TES) disposed of on 11.1.2016 directed to take into consideration the benefits flowing from Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the year 2003 after recording evidence, if necessary, at the request of the parties. However, after remand, both the parties did not adduce any evidence. Ex.A3 discloses the calculation made on the basis of the pay scale fixed to the petitioner for the year 1999-2000 and based on the benefits of VRS scheme applied to the petitioner. The 7 burden was on the petitioner to place cogent materials to establish that the calculation made by the Accounts Department as per Ex.A3 is not in accordance with voluntary retirement scheme of the year 2003 by producing separate calculation in this regard. Neither in the pleadings nor in the documents or in the oral evidence, the petitioner did disclose revision of wages periodically. Ex.R1 showed that his VRS scheme benefits have been calculated based on the revision of wages and even the respondent corporation has calculated the amount based on the last pay drawn at the time of VRS. 240 days EL is also considered. Periodical pay scale, stagnation increment and his last pay drawn for the period of 1999-2000 has been made available along with Ex.R1.
10. The court commissioner has deposed that he made calculation based on future pay scale with anticipation which the petitioner may get. The representation of the petitioner Ex.A14 was also based on the revised pay scale and payment of retirement benefits based on periodical promotions with reference to some government circulars and periodical 8 increment. It is not shown before the Labour Court as to who has ordered the revised pay scale document up to 6.4.2006, ignoring the fact that in the year 2003 itself the respondent Corporation is closed with a Government Order.
11. The petitioner claimed Rs.23,08,513/-. Based on his salary from March, 1982 to October, 1998 which came to Rs.6,88,641/- and 50% of the said salary came to Rs.3,44,321/-. The petitioner claimed arrears from May 1979 to March 1982 at Rs.6,000/- and the P F payable at 12% at Rs.9,57,829/- and Management contribution at Rs.1,14,939/-. The petitioner also claimed bonus, E.L. encashment, VRS benefits and the remaining service salary, gratuity, LTC etc., It was for the petitioner to establish with cogent evidence the claim of Rs.23,08,513/-. Considering Ex.A8 to A15 the documents pertaining to P.F. annual statement, PF salary slips and his representations, the Labour Court opined that those documents are not in consonance with the calculation made by the petitioner. The petitioner had failed to place sufficient materials to show that second respondent had not considered the 9 voluntary retirement scheme of the year 2003. The petitioner has failed to establish that the benefits of voluntary retirement scheme of 2003 were not considered while calculation made by the respondent corporation.
12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case to differ with the order passed by the Labour Court. The fact finding court has considered the materials available on record and rejected the claim. Reconsideration of the entire facts, is not the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution unless it is shown there is patent illegality in the order. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE akd