Karnataka High Court
The Station Manager Indian Airlines ... vs Sri K Ravindranath on 4 September, 2012
Author: K. L. Manjunath
Bench: K. L. Manjunath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. L. MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO
WRIT APPEAL Nos.1772/2007 & 2145/2011 (L-TER)
& WRIT APPEAL CROB 1/2008 (L-TER)
IN WRIT APPEAL Nos.1772/2007 & 2145/2011 (L-TER):
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATION MANAGER INDIAN AIRLINES LIMITED
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE 9
2. INDIAN AIRLINES LIMITED
REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN
NEW DELHI
3. THE STATION MANAGER
INDIAN AIRLINES LIMITED
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE 9 ... APPELLANTS.
(BY M/S. KASTURI ASSOCIATES)
AND:
SRI K RAVINDRANATH
S/O KARIYAPPA
NO.11 I MAIN
SUDDUGUNTEPALYA
2
D.R.COLLEGE POST
BANGALORE 29 ... RESPONDENT
(BY M/S SUBBA RAO & CO FOR C/R)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.26619/2002 C/W
38686/2001 DATED 30/07/2007.
IN WRIT APPEAL CROB 1/2008 (L-TER):
BETWEEN:
SRIK RAVINDRANATH
S/O KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.170 2ND CROSS,
7TH MAIN, BSK 1ST STAGE, SRINIVASNAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 050. ...CROSS OBJECTOR.
(BY SRI. SUBBARAO, SR.COUNSEL)
AND:
1. THE STATION MANAGER
INDIAN AIRLINES LIMITED
K.G. ROAD,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
2. INDIAN AIRLINES LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN
NEW DELHI. ...RESPONDENTS.
(BY SMT. SUBHA ANANTHI, FOR M/S. KASTURI ASSOCIATES)
THIS WRIT APPEAL CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI
RULE 22 OF CPC PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION
NO.38686/2001 DATED 30.7.2007.
THESE WRIT APPEALS AND WRIT APPEAL CROB COMING
ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, V. SURI APPA RAO, J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
3
JUDGMENT
These appeals and cross objection are filed by the Management - India Airlines Limited and the workman challenging the order dated 30.07.2007 in W P Nos.26619/2002 c/w 38686/2001 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the management and allowed the claim of the workmen in part. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the management as well as the workman have filed these appeals and the cross objection.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The workman - K. Ravindranath was appointed as porter by the company - India Airlines Limited w.e.f. 4.8.1977. His services were subsequently confirmed.
He remained unauthorized absent from 1981 to 1988. He was warned several times by issuing letters. Finally an enquiry was initiated against him. The enquiry officer conducted enquiry and submitted a report. Based on the report of the enquiry officer the workman 4 was dismissed from services from 23.8.1988. Therefore, the workman raised a dispute in C.R.No.3/1988 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court. The Tribunal passed an award after hearing both the parties directing reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and without back- wages. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court both the management and the workman filed the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge for quashing of the order of Tribunal. The learned Single Judge clubbed both the writ petitions and after hearing both the parties allowed the writ petition filed by the workman and the writ petition filed by the management was disposed off holding that the workman will be entitled for reinstatement in view of the fact that the management has given sufficient amount by way of back-wages under Section 17B wages and granted 10% back-wages from the date of joining i.e., 23.8.1988 till 15.6.2001 i.e., till the date of award. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge the workman has filed the cross objection 5 1/2008 (L-TER) and the Management has filed W.A.Nos.1772/2007 & 2145/2011. The learned counsel for the management submitted that the workman had already been paid substantial amount of Rs.1,40,000/- under the provisions of 17B wages from 2003 onwards. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in awarding 10% of the back-wages in addition to the amount already paid to him after attaining superannuation on 31.12.2006 and the question of reinstatement does not arise because he has attained superannuation.
3 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the workman submitted that having passed an order for reinstatement of the workman the learned Single Judge was not justified in awarding only 10% of the back- wages though the workman is entitled for 100% of the back-wages. As seen from the records and as per Annexure-A produced by the management the workman absented himself from duty right from the year 1981 till 1988 for about 1084 days. Out of 8 years of service he 6 remained absent for about 1084 days and he was available for work only for 836 days. The record further indicates that he failed to attend before the enquiry officer and in spite of repeated warnings and advise by way of letters, he did not report for duty. He also failed to submit any statement of defence to the charges levelled against him. In spite of several reminders and due to the absenteeism from duty, the conduct of the appellant clearly indicates that he was in the habit of remaining absent for several days, during the period of 836 days of service. Therefore, in spite of the same the Tribunal awarded back-wages under the provisions of Section 17B of the Act and he was paid lum sum amount of Rs.1,40,000/- and odd. In the meanwhile, he attained superannuation on 31.12.2006. Therefore, he was not reinstated into service. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the workman in absenting himself from duty without any cause, the learned Single Judge was not justified in awarding 10% of the back-wages of the last drawn salary from the date of dismissal or the award passed by 7 the Labour Court as he was substantially paid back- wages during the pendency of the proceedings under the provisions of 17B wages.
4 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the cases, we find there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal filed by the Management in W.A.Nos.1772/2007 and 2145/2011 is allowed and the cross-objection filed in WA CROB No.1/2008 filed by the workman is hereby dismissed insofar as awarding of 10% of the back-wages is set aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE NG*