Karnataka High Court
The Management Of M/S B. Chandrappa Silk ... vs Mr T.S. Shankar on 3 September, 2012
Author: K.L.Manjunath
Bench: K.L.Manjunath
1
W.A. No.3579/2009 (L-TER)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO
W.A. No.3579/2009 (L-TER)
BETWEEN :
THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S B. CHANDRAPPA SILK WEAVING
FACTORY, NO.32/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD
VINAYAKANAGAR
BANGALORE-560030.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROPRIETOR MR. C. MANJUNATH. ...APPELLANT
(By SRI. K R ANAND, ADV.)
AND :
MR T.S. SHANKAR
S/O LATE SANNAPPA
C/O KARNATAKA TEXTILE AND GENERAL
WORKERS UNION
NO.87, S C ROAD
SESHADRIPURAM
BANGALORE-560020. ...RESPONDENT
(SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE RESPONDENT IS HELD
SUFFICIENT V.O. DATED 04.07.2011)
2
W.A. No.3579/2009 (L-TER)
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, 1961, prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set
aside the impugned order dated 31.08.2009 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P. No.1126/2008 and quash the impugned Award
granting relief of reinstatement, continuity of service and full back
wages.
This Writ Appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day,
K.L.MANJUNATH.J., delivered the following :
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. Since the respondent is served and unrepresented the matter is taken up for final hearing.
2. The respondent had raised a dispute in I.D. No.135/1999 before the Labour Court and an exparte award was passed. According to the appellant, the appellant was not served with any notice and having come to know about the award passed in favour of the respondent and on account of the information furnished to the appellant by the respondent, the appellant had filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P. No. 43305/2003. This Court dismissed the said writ petition on 6th October 2003 permitting him to file an 3 W.A. No.3579/2009 (L-TER) application and seek to recall the order passed in I.D. No.135/1999 dated 22nd January 2003. Thereafter, Miscellaneous Application was filed before the Labour Court to recall the award passed on 22 nd January 2003 in I.D. No.135/1999. The said application came to be rejected by the Industrial Tribunal. Challenging the same, the appellant filed W.P. No. 1126/2008. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on 31st August 2009 on the ground that no satisfactory reason was assigned for not appearing before the Labour Court and contested the matter. This order is called in question in this appeal. Therefore, the present appeal is filed.
3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we have seen that no notice in fact was served upon the appellant on the original side in I.D. No.125/1999. Even according to the Tribunal, the postal endorsement reads that 'Party not claimed'. Based on such endorsement, the Court cannot presume that the notice was tender to him and he did not claim the same. Immediately after coming to know of the award from the respondent the appellant had filed a Writ Petition before this Court. The said writ petition came to be dismissed granting liberty to the appellant to approach the Labour 4 W.A. No.3579/2009 (L-TER) Court.
4. The award was passed in the year 2003, the writ petition was dismissed in the month of October 2003 and immediately within two days from the date of dismissal of the writ petition, Miscellaneous Application was filed to recall the order. But these facts are not appreciated by the learned Single Judge. If an exparte award is passed against the appellant and if an opportunity was not given to the appellant, consequently such order would be disaster in so far as as the appellant is concerned.
5. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge did not appreciate the fact that no notice was actually on the appellant and that he had filed a Miscellaneous Application within two days from the date of dismissal of the writ petition. If these facts are taken into consideration, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge would have certainly allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order passed in M.A. No. 8/2003 dated 11 th October 2007.
6. In the result, this Writ Appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 1126/2008 dated 31 st August 2009 and the order passed by the Labour Court, Bangalore in M.A. 5 W.A. No.3579/2009 (L-TER) No.8/2003 dated 11th October 2007 are hereby set aside. The dispute raised by the respondent in I.D. No.135/1999 is restored. The appellant is at liberty to file objections and contest the matter. The Labour Court is directed to dispose of the dispute after giving opportunity to both the parties in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Rbv