Karnataka High Court
Visveshwaraya University vs Bhojaraja S/O Mayanna Gowda on 15 March, 2012
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
IN THE HIGH COT IRT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15' DAY OF MARCH 2012
BEFORE
THF HON'BI F MR JUSTICE AR\VINI) KUMAR
\VNJTPETI nON NQ. 530212 00jL JER)
BETWEEN:
Visveshwaravi Ieehiiohical I.niversii\
Rep. by its Registrar
Onana Sangama
Belgaum 18
. Ihe Warden,
UBDT College of Engineering
Boys Hostel,
Davaiigere 4. PETITIONERS
(13v Sri,K.SBharaili Kiirnar , Adv.)
ANT)
Bhoj'iraja
S/u Ma\anna Goxvda
Aged LIE it 37'a
C/u B. Chandralali,
J3DF 3n S IL ste] Q s
iLivanere
A Niaiaji
, 0 fl( ntI ipp
\aca ibuiii Ji \eaIN
)1m
i SLaJiti )v ri i-i
'1 IEi 13
\01i ih
'a
3. K.S. (iangadharalah,
S/C) LaXm€lflfla.
Aged about 42 years.
Rio Hoovina Vyaparl.
Manjappa Building.
'C'ross. I3hagatsingh Nagar.
flavangere
4. Dasegowda.
55/0 Honnaiah,
Aged about 33 years.
('/0 Thimniaiah.
No.4471/i. 16th Cross.
Ii Main, WflJ Nagar,
Davangere.
5. H.D. Rudrappa.
<5/0 Danappa,
Aged about 33 years.
R/o Gangannakatte
NerlIgi.
Davangere.
6. Huchappa Reddy.
sio Hanumappa.
Aged about 36 years
(joG.! Mudlagin.
lTBi)T Boys iIo%1ei
T)aangete 4.
K Surecli.
/ 1' api 1
asacri .Ibfltfl 30 vi tirs.
/ )asqor a sh 1%
flpp. E)evarai S'x j'i
bii ri
lenir icae.u 'Uttir;! I
Ii tr
\ .i " ab 4'i.!'
•
-- .1 •• ' al 'i
j..T a tf
I •. i'Ij '
I)Iiadarnagliatta Pt.
B1dra\jt11i ['a1iik.
9. Sliivappa Karadi.
S/o Lat I Iai iianppa Karadi,
Aged about 53 years.
C/o Lalithainma,
No, 524/3, Near Shakti Gas
Owner's house,
Mouneshwara Badavane,
Nittuvalli, Davarigere RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. II. Kantharaj. Adv..
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNI)ER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A
PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMPUGN El) COMMON
AWARD DATED 2L01.2006 IN KID NOS 3/03 TO
7/03. 13 TO 15/03 ANI) 97/03 BY THE PRL. LABOUR
COURT. HIJBLI VIDE ANNEXUREA TO THE WRIT
PETITION AND DISMISS THE CLAIM PETITIONS FILEI)
BY TI IE RESPONDENTS.
111 11 II1IO\ OMI\( RF I MIN \RY
HF \RIN( III 1) kY hIP MADE IHF
OLLOV IN(
OR D F I
Reptnirit n1 I tr rai-eI di"p1in un lion
(( IA) 0 ii:d:sn iii I )pn0 0 '0i
-1
Disputes Act. Labour Court after adjudication of the
claim 1w takintz into consideration nral and
documentar) evidence produced by both parties by its
order dated 2 1.01 .2(X)6 allowed tile rcfei ci ice in part
and held tenninat ion of the respondents is bad in law
and ordered for their reinstatement without backwages
It was also held that respondents an' entitled to benefit
of continuity of services.
2 It is the contention of Mr Bharath Kumar
learned counqel appearing for petitioners 1 hat there is
no relationship of employc I and employee betwecn
peUtioneis md espondeiits and espondeut 1 to 9
were appointed by tilt boardet s of hostel and
resp ndc.nt' er n apjoirtei aga' i dT %ircti)nc i
IX -S 'W jsctit'Ofle's. II' would 'hc 'untc'i I II i1 'tilt
i%%lLtf! b' the ar.I'n iI'-elI ;vas nu s.(titic in •fl li.s1'I
t I .. iloy rlii ' I
H. '"tiJti (,ti'.--fltj i-ha! J..i.I sf11 I • t,.i.j ..'1
.1 "( Vt hi i i" hi 1 ii dii
I a I a 4.
.0 1
-- I. ' alt a I' r.c
also contended that when there Is no relationship of
'employer' and employee question of complying with
Section 2SF oI the H) Act does not arise and as such the
order of Labour Court Is erroneous In support of his
contention lie has relied upon the Judgement ol the
Hon'ble Apex Court In the case of StaLe of Karnataka
and Others Vs. KSGD Canteen Employees Wejfare
Association reported in 2006 (2) AIR Karnataka R 82. by
relying upon paxa 46o1 the said judgement
3. SrI S. Kantharaj. learntd counsel appearing
for respondents would support the order passed by
Labc tar Court 3nd conunds that respondents ha'e becn
wokm foi eno1 1 1 ycars
.onllrit iou',lv and si ibinits t hat I a! ,our C oert 'tred 'n
not avardin,. the l)acksar an'! 't oujht n fiait raktri
utc isldea i (Fix that ouch r ?o 1 t
ic I °r t 1,
,'Qtit.( . . li I I 1
'
c ik..'.,_ . asI,. 'nsl. . 'a .iii.c
.
it ilgi t
c
4 t tl:; 1
a ttt; 'Jnt ()(I,3' I .'lc'( .L
6
these grounds lie seeks for affirming the award of
Labour Court and rejecting the petition.
4 1 abour Court has found on appreciation of
evidence both oral and documentary that there cannot
be any dispute with regard to respondents working in
second petitioner's hostel in different capacities as
Cook. Cleaner and Assistant Cook etc.: The fact that
second petitioner's hostel warden has been appointed Is
also not disputed: The said hostel was under the
supervisory control of the second petitloix r and there
was no matenal placed by the petitioners to
dcmon'itrat,. or establp,li the fact that warck ii was 1101
s pen sing ecr rolling the ho tel and its mmats as
tic" ti'.. rr%pondrnrs: It i'. in be noticed that the
101 -
1 1 U )C ne a
tIJ.)t ljO%tt 1 not run tiI:ckr Hit 1dE'1iiiI%'I iljori and
i'd It 1
';'ij rrj !i'',; ' cra'l t f','.
1
h: xcI. i•;
it e I C 'I
P
I
'tI 9' ii "t !. 1 j ,Ij j I' •1•. •'
I
respect of these respondents. At the same time. it is to
be noticed that the second petitioner took up a
contention before the Labour Court that sen ices of the
respondent was not satisfactory and sei eral s.. omphunts
had been received against them regarding quality and
quantity of food supplied to the Boarders and as such
Unlvenitv resolved to hand over the jnesq work to the
contractor which action was admittedly stayed by orde
r
of Civil Court and later vacated. In other words these
sequence of events would go to show that second
petitioner was interested to get rich of thc. respondents
No.1 to 9 on the ground of proi ichng propc i facilities to
thc boarders. Records viotdd also go M sho that these
iespnh1denL No. I to 9 were workhu4 in the second
petitioner hostel in one capac .13 OF thc .'t1cr s such
labour C ctrt has rau.lnl 1' Id there is is i elauunsiiir 01
employer ii i .mplos t e bet kt n ft 'c it' icr' i
hic nsxx t
1. •In. 'r ( '.1 'i 'h.k 4
:jpf tlj t
j%'.
. l
v *1''' 'I • L F
if ) C I I I
$
240 days of continuous service In the preceding year
of
termination considered riial contentions raise
d by
parties namely. as to whethet tespondents No.
I to 9
herein ire able to demonstrate that the have work
ed
fot a period of 5 to 17 yearc or having riot work
ed for
240 clays continuously in the preceding year
of the
tenninatlon as contended by the management.
To
absol e Its liability second petitioner had contented
that
hostel is not controlled and managed by the seco
nd
petitioner and it was also contented that mess in
question was maintained by sti idents themselveb i.e..
boardn-s by pooling contributions (on the basic f preic
t
%vstem) on ic. c ount r$ no proper sen ice being i ende
red
b' the' i epondentc and st veral complaints having been
r cc dreçi dr '1 thqi hti at Iqi itiyct helrol
1
b cpar't and stn ci Fn%t pelnn ncr im"ncie I tc h* i
d
t
'ner flit mcs to contiariors Is tI'%LfleI I ennrtbt".
ill c iii o . e ani.s : lid t 'ixndenlc
uru intact iS ;ig at iii ! • "% I ) 9tit', 1 1
ill ' ''tic %rlt 1
J C•q ( • -- ri !' •i'.lt .1 \4 ,r
I
9
Officer to dernoiistrate or establish that petitioners had
no control over the hostel either supervisory or
administration On the other hand, it is admitted Lw
the petitioners that warden used to be deputed to the
hostel for supervising. Though it Is contended b
Sri.Bharath Kumar. learned counsel appearing for
petitioners that it is only to over see the hostel
maintenance such contention has remained as a plea
without being proved in as much as petitioners hai e
failed to establish this fact by examining atleast any one
warden who had been appointed by the petitioners over
the year%. The fact that hostel was run in tht boarders
itlf on prefet s' stcm was also not est2bhshed h3 the
pt r a on] r a 1 ned
petitio x vs Lii fac some of thc doc unicius hic li "dine
U' be )fldt!c ed i petith il-rs before 'ht I .tho;ir ('nun
namely. Exhibit M-.3. which is a %tatemeiit pri-pared by
an 1 %ft1 'Jo flu UI ii
K I
(II IGia I) tF •i,t' fl I Ii 1
I I I I t I - P _
I 9 t' •'' t I•
IL)
by petitioners before Labour ('ourt is in the vietultv 01
truth. The statement does not reflect that mess is
managed by %tudents.
7. As contended by the petitioners If tile
students were managing the said hostel or if there has
been any compliant regarding the quality and quantity
of the food prepared at the hostel by these respondents
No.1 to 9. nothIng prevented the petitioners to examine
either one or two boarders of the hostel to substantiate
such claim. In the absence of such evidence being
tendei ed flit contention of petitioners was nghtly held
to be not pioved 1w 1 abour Court.
'3 TIit ntnt'nt s ho arc'. a mint d vu hi half 01
'he workmen ha c prod'tved 21 mc utnent-, md ot it
a c a W1)( Au) 1W C 3 n
tnai(dtn da''d '5 'O"OO' is u ci c ade vi
1iTh 'c coil'
1 petiliolin flr,trl --l (living !It- p. rlc'd Jnj
ii %j)I I 1 a TI )
A I it'hF IF "i, i.
4 n: 'ffjl lj ,.' . .
4 1 ..''--
:._... '
S
It
second petit loners college Is addressed to the employees
wherein the address of the hostel Is mentioiied
I ikewise certificates at Ex.W2 1. W22 & W23 Issued to
respondents No 7 8 & 9 are In line with Lxhibit Wi to
W3. This overwhelming evidence tendered lw
respondents No.1 to 9 before Labour Court has been
scrutinized and examined by Labour Court and came to
be accepted to arrive at a conclusion that respondents
No.1 to 9 are working In the second petitioner hostel.
No evidence has been tendered by petitioners to
disbelieve the contents of these exhibits are false There
Is no contra e' Idence produced by the petitioners to
i ebut the same in that slew of thi m itic i I abour ( 01 ii
wi. ft ilK 1 istif t d it, omine to a c'onelusjon lb U
re spondents proved that hn l'a' e £ endered 240
ddv% il
''ontinuoti:. CflL t lid thtn. his oven r' in tOt il)1i
i1 11CC
nt Section 25 r ol the ID t b ec mid pntiton'r
I ' abs, ' h ni tc cd •lal on' e oritc nt t',t
•i- u .i'. ii' i' sk
.
1 'i
t r ,i itrit' otiLin' I 'r lit ItI'jS
I ' Ii .1 f, 'I Iji 11.'! 1, 1)
3 f t ' itS. ' 'C
J Pt .--. ' I _.. • I ,. .... I . 1
I?
petit loners to disprove this fact. In this regard
pet ltioner'$ have not made any attempt to disprove the
tact that the respondents hai C 1101 rendered 210 days of
continuous smice md there Is no rebuttal nidence
tendered by petitioners.
10. Even on the issuc of limitation, labour
Court has righth held that dispute has been raised on
17.01 2003 by taking into consideration the date of
ternthiation as 05.12.2002 and as such it is ivell within
time. Said fInding also does not call for interference
since said finding is not contrary tc facts or record and
as 'u Ii finding if tht Labour Court is required to be
.iffirmrd
11 Isv eoii',ujcring the m cr41 e' iclenr. i' ailahk
ic ef e ot
so th r 'und irgeti in his in petitin y the
P'W lu' ,arw, it (diii "fl h" said lli.it ')i d' t thr L'ihnur
r'J'- ':• Ir .1: iT" :11;! n'i1_ ',ii' .z' ' -- ''
I S
t I
CI I t I
fl
observe that labour Court has held that there is
violation of Section 25 F of ID Act by the petitioners. In
other words ills held that retrenchment of respondents
No 1. to 9 is not In accorchuwe with law. If it iere In be
so it Is for the petitioners to proceed against
respondents No.1 to 9 in accordance with law if they are
so advised. In the result, I pass the following.
ORDER
1 Writ petition is dismissed. ii. Award of the Labour Court is affirmed ill subject to observations made herein above No order as to costs.
J
i I
R
S