Agricultural Produce Market … vs P Ananda Poojary on 9 July, 2009

The concurrent findings of the

Labour Court, Mangaiore in Refere_r!ce.__I.D..’_'{LC§{‘§v»’§i.G..’_’_3V/99 V

ordering reinstatement of the respande_nt~ awe

?O% hackwages from 164VQ4:;9S9a6′- of’-

reinstatement dated 18f08-Zfiezfiwhégh frets’ «been; affirmed
by the iearned Sing¥e smgg rnivvga. is-¢j.%r 294/2002 dated 2:.-

01-2002, are cafied inquestiovn” court appeai
under sectim 2; mag mar cciurt Act, 1951.
raised dispute befare the

Governmerft;–.._V%% ThVVVe’-__(4V=’;03éer}iment in its order referred the

‘_d§sp§:€¥e. th__e £ébca:r..Coun, Mangatore for its adjudication.

7__Af£ér –rece4ipt:v’:§f”the reference the Labour Court issued notice

tr:”!§¢trh and both the parties flied their cfaim

‘.vstateri1a:.-§.r§t..: ‘V 4

V’ The respondent, who was. the first party befora

Labour Court, contended that he has worked as driver of

.:~ l:he appeiiant Committee for more than four and a half years

W4

S. In order to establish the respective cieims the

respondent got himseif examined as PW1 and throuatihijm 8

documents were marked. On behaif of the a,ogoeiie_’itt;~

evidence was iet in. After hearing the

Court heid issues 1 and 2 in the affirrrietive”e_nci’

4 in the negative. Uitimateiy the’~cieirr: wes_iAAedjadi’oeteo’~..

directing the appellant to reinetete the._V_res”poViitierit’V with

continuity of service arscifurther’ toitpey ijeckwages
at 70% from 16-11-19S’§6% reinstatement.

This order wae..cha;ii-engied by filing the writ

petition.

6. it Judge who heard the writ

_ petition” s::onc:.iri’e»:V_ifiivith: the views of the Labour Court and

petition. Challenging these two orders,

Ati1e”-.*ireseéit~..,xa_;;.V;o’eie’i is fried.

‘ have heard the teamed counsel for parties.

A. s The main contention of the apoeiiant is that the

Court as weii as the ieerned Singie Judge did not

cohsider that the responcient did not produce any document

§r’/

to show that he was appéinted by the APMC as driv és*.Tand

there exists reiationship of empfoyer and empioyeéj

reiief.

9. Mr. B.G.Sr¥dharan, zearnea;se§m$r.uah~.V:”

Hoysaia Security Agergcy as sa{ary Ԥs by the
appellant to the respohdefit, the :§;sf1£3é:r’L’j:3 §ss_e_d by the Labour
Court as wen as the leaimafi jsingie»_J§§6g§’.re§uires to be set

aside and an to the appetlant to
lead eviiiéficegfr’ V’

3.0.” » F5er caunse! for respondent

reiiedgfupon tfie’-»d§ct1:méntv..a produced by him at E:-:.P1 to P8

répandem has proved that he was an

f§e.~:a:>pellant since he was appointrnent as a

_ driéer a:§::f’=s~}éis transferred from one place to another and

“”=.V§ven_d<$ca;*r1ents would clearfy shew that salary was paid to

A the circumstances, he requests the court to dismiss

f_ ' uthifi appeai.

M.

11. After hearing the learned counsel for parties
what is required to be considered in this appeal is elhether

the Labour Court as well as the learned Single

committed any error, which calls for lnterfereece_::lnv K

court appeal?

12. Admittedly, except filll1.9:”–..the lsta£enen£’lllofr..»

objections the appellant heeled/.;.ot or’

documentary evidence . Court ‘toehow that

the respondent was notlee appellant and

salary ‘elctuallilfi-3V lilrrl””tl;arough Hoysala Securlty
Agencylend.’_thatV’rlefwave.V_:not…uoder complete control of the

appellant endl thet._ Ills: eervlce was operated by Hoysala

– o5ec::r’%tvcWficy. o A

V ..vlV;lie;’l’ra?ve seen the order sheet maintained by the

_ Labour C:ourt’;AWe have also seen the contentions of the

ll.”4”=_eope_lle.nt–« 1′ to deny the claim of the rapondent. The

‘olocuellents produced by the rwpondent would reveal that he

sees under complete control of the appellant. He was

‘ directed to work under ‘fahslldar, Hebli. He was transferred

3

15. The reasons for not avaiiina the opportunity

{granted by the Labour Court to the eppeflaot, has notutaeen

satisfactorily expiafned by the appellant except ‘toot

the Lawyer has not appeared before the Labou’r:Cot;rt;t:”‘

aopeifant is an institution. As and:-when. the jetipoetedr V

before the Labour Court, it was ‘Seéifetary«.

other responsibie Officer to before. th.ej’v!_,eEoVor’ Court” V

and assist the court. when 5.uc#r..’prooeoure’Aisvnotfoifowed
by the appeilant and if there “end lapse on the

part of the appeifent, t;;ét’ap §es1a:éthas mama itsetf and

not resoondent of -time.

16, Ewe vvhevve ‘e:lso~~’t’ seen the order sheet of the

.*vV.4_fear31_ed ESing_fe ‘3oGg.e…othat when the matter is posted for

eppeiiant is directed to reinstate the

atpmzant,’ same has not been complied with by the

‘.Veppeiuier:f.A.:. Therefore, we do not find any case to come to

“‘..jt%1e’tconcfo5ion that an error has been committed by the

Sinofe Judge which cafis for our interference.

‘ “éirnileriy we are 31:50 of the opinion that the that the Labour

6/

Court is wstiffed in granting re-Iief to the responde{nt.:’_i5asgd

an the meacling and evidence iet in by the

:27. In the resuit, the apnea: Mi§:§3’Is:1i§«ss9e’d*..:_’: fig
bear their costs. V’ 1 ‘ ‘ V A ‘

5

; :aage

A §%§53§§@Z

VK