High Court Karnataka High Court

Mallasarja S/O Siddalingappa … vs The Chief Medical Officer on 1 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Mallasarja S/O Siddalingappa … vs The Chief Medical Officer on 1 December, 2008
Author: N.Kumar
_ 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH
AT DHARWAD
Dated this the 1" day of December, 2008

BEFGRE

THE uonmm MR. JUSTICE N.   "  

Writ Petition No. 31414 <:.1'é{)<}3 «_(1,«--»'I*}31i)     

Between:

Maliasaxja  "
s/o Siddalingappa Balektmdxi F' '
Aged 50 years  _ - 
Occ: Nil V   --_

R/0 Benachi11maniiVfl]agé   
Qist. Belgaum 4.: '  '' ~ (Petitioner

V (B.  Advocate)

      Oficer

 V, 35

" -. .  Hgaith Center
. " Tq. 
 Dist; _l;=?::lgaum

'I'§3,§:"Chisef Mmiical Oficer
'  Cottage Htmpital
Dist. Belgaum

"  The Secretary of Health an Famiiy

Welfare"
Govcmment of Karnataka 



as? 

M 8 Building     ..
Bangalore     _

This Wxit Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 25.2.7 Lei '
the Constimtion of India, prayi11g'..:to;-cgtgasiae t}:.1e'= in'::fp.1_1gm2r;}
order passed by the Industrial TI'1ibu:;:31;*--Hub1i on '2.-a*c}.-2QO8 
ID Ne.287[2{}O3 (Ref No.136/52.092) at@*X_1mexure¥<3A so far; as it" ,
reiates to the Para ? of the OIdC'f._,¢?.§~W8Ifi-'.. ' --    'V 

This Writ Petition   this

day, the Court made the--._f<:)?1ovc-'ing_f:. V " _

 

The   writ petition the
award    ..  {loan setfing aside the
 .. "lumpsum compensation of
R$.30,90«@-Q_§)  so;{:;:""_.»ee:iVex1statement and granting other

Ieficiigv 

.  'vnpefiizioncr was appointed as Wanziboy by the

 reesfiéixéient on daily wages on ()8. 1 1.1989. Later he was

  eirzzfisfefred to the second respondent ofice. His services came

id” fie terminated on 30.03.1992 without assigning any

‘ieaaons. Therefom, he raiseé a. dispute Conciliation

yxoceexiings failed. The Gevernment refened the matter for

iv

W’ 3 ,.

adjuéicatien {er the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court.

both the parties adduced evidence. The Labour Court helci
that petitioner hail worked for 282 days and therefere he

could not have been terminated fiom se117ice4vV.wi.t»I10ut

complying with the maxiidatoxy requirement of

the Induehjal Disputes Ace 1947. ‘I’peretbre;”i’t– éteide e{1¢’~

order of teneination. But it took note cf tee “lor.g

years have lapsed from t§1e.{ia.§e of’W1{1_ie ,

reference itself was afier a 1)eriodVV._oi’ 10 Ufider these
circumstances, it was of ofiin:§o1;i’ ‘reinstatemen¥: of the

Workman wouidv’ -»AA1i11j1iie.tA,— ‘I’herefore, exercising discretion

under Seci:ir..;v_;1MA Bci, in lieu of reinstatement, it

a compensation of Rs.30,00G~–{}O.

V. $5Lgg1i¥evee1VA..b§§vA”the said award, the petition.er is before this

3. iearned. Counsel for the petitioner assaifing

“Vibe impugned award contends that once the order of

“:}_&rm, L13:”1_at:ion is set aside, as a rule, the Labeur Court ought to

heve ordered for reinstatement with backwages and} other

-4-

uoonsequenfial benefits, which it has not done. Therefore, he

submits that the impugneci awani requires interference

4. It is true that in the normal eoutse

order of termination is set aside a’s””iliegal,’..Atl1.e Workmaix is

entitled for reinstatement and also Aifidrbllgackwaggag; .

not an invariable rule. In the case, ‘},3.ejtj7aS–;vVai)}3oi12ted”‘

as ctaily wager ané was ,:v;orkmg**e:§_’ “He ltas put in
hardiy 282 days of been texminated
after complying with 1*eqs;.:ii*ement of Sectioya

25-F ofvvthe *:r.eit1statemeI1t by this Court, he

coulct be etimpiying with the requirement of

_ Secti€}t1’V23-F oftltisteig-$.ct.&V He has slept over the matter and the

tefereziee nearly 10 years thereafter. Though the

togolt a lenient View and heid that though there is

V V’ _ éelajf fishes in making the refezenee, that cannot be the

gxotijgd rejecting the reference. But after holding that

ttetneiaitation is bad, certainly, it took note of the fact that 16

-ioag years have iapseci from the date of termination.

” V Therefore, in its OI3iI]i(}I} it was appropriate to grant imnpsum

., 5 –

compensation of Rs.3{),()00«OO in lieu of reinstatement. This

approach of the Labour Court cannot be found fauit

5. §’t is to be noticed that initially the E311?”

petitioner was from the back door. Hf? was

out of the provision of the Iz1dust;*’i:;11:Qi.’i3.p1&1t€?_s..Vz§(;j’t;*o u u

circumstances, after giving the ?.’1hd€:’r.

Labour Cour: was justified in ..o1’¢:1efi1.2.g In=.

that View of the matter,__ it mat’ Labour
Court committed any interference by

35/1
Iudgéj