R/AT' N0. 2320/3, 'SOUGANfiHA"
SRE. NA(}ARAKANN§KA TEMPLE ROAD
DEREBAIL, l{(Z}MBADi
MANGALORE -- 575908. RESPGNDENTS.
(BY SRL JAGADEESH M, ADV FOR R1 85 R2)
(BY SR1. NATARAJU BALLAL, ADV FOR R8)
THIS PETETION FILED UNDER"AR'FICE}E ?.'3'2é%;é"as..--,"' 22:: V'
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF' INmA FiRAY_IN£3 TO 'ASEDE f
THE ORDER DATED 11.8.2008 (ANN-A} PAss=::3I3._mf 'i'_£~'i«E;
mo. _ _ V
TI-HS PETi'I"i€Z)N COMING Q1~if'F.Q'R_VPRi;.m3':5R;§#G -- B
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE.CC1UR'F MABE; THE FOLLOWING:
Tm-3 p_¢:=.i:i1.*LiTi§§:Vt.3:1_'V:'€*:B'1';>,l:j;i_¢%;o.i1; the 3rd respondent as an
Office AsSi$_fia§11tV.i”1er to discharge dutics at
its MVa:1gaIoreV di’j§f,é.’ T3716 3″! respondent when relieved
31.8.1999 sailed in question the
Court: irzvoking Section }{}(4–~
A) oI’ “i.h(:=§ Disputes Act, 194?, for shaft: ‘ID
to an award (it. 17.3.2003 Atmexurefi,
:a$ic:ie the ¥16i”B1iI1a£i()Z} of service ané directing
“-fiféiiistatemerit with continuity of servioe and 80%
xbackwages and consequential benefits. The petiiioner
M
LABOUR COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE; TH_g9.R:;’A§;D’%
…3..
quesfiomed the award in W.P.No.44943/20032 H
was disposed off by order dt. 9.4.2007 M
award reducing the quantum of ito
40°/o. j % X _ _ %
2. In compliance with dxe
petitioner by iett€:§~ A’ ‘A_fiI]’é${uf'(g..(}
resinstated the 3″-‘* with
cdntinuity of s.~e13;i§St: as an –~ fii¢*.é,”r~,]” ‘a.1.1___cV{‘ directed her to
report at Jamnagar. The
8rd resfzdndératvivdfiyv 18.6.2007 A1mexure–H
welcomed of the modified award, but
V. 1}fi§dlA2fZl.i’*VV_L1I)V1Z¢Af§”‘t?.:7}d..0§’ July 2007, to report for duty at
deified” piacd” ‘(sf posting, as she had some personal
. dqdapears that the 33*’ respondent reported
duty 4.8.2007 at Vadinar, marked for a day and
” ‘?1ifiIff§iifiZ6F remained absent.
3. The 3111 respondent through her €.301}.I”1S61 issued
V x a notice dt. 15.8.2007 AI1nex1zre–J calling upon {he
ML
-4-
petitianer to post: her at its Mangalore {)tI”1<::4*.:;._ '
seven days, failing which she would bc_ té'
mauve for appropriate relief i.:1cludEi;r1g §§O£;tii:ti1pt §f
The petitiener causad a reply V
A1mex1.1re–K refuting the to
accommodate the petiifitsner in fiéeingalore,
as there was no busines§_a";t..t.11E;
4. addresseé a
<:o111m11I1i£:.<3.t;':i;V')I;{" 7Annexure–M to the
Commissiofiér' conteriding that at the
place of VJa;n1.;.'iagar, being the only female
4, Agmpj£:)'}:eg~:_,: while éllveihers were male, it was 1:00 risky to
post and aiso that there was 116
a.c£ia1fi1Vmoé.9;{j.§;ti availabie far a residance. In that view
"(ff the mkgfitier, it was aflegeci that the petitioner desigxed
fixésting at vadinav so as to harass her ints
–._ su}’:3missic)3.’1. In addition, it was coxiztended that the
fiddress of pasting, as mentioned in the Annexu;re~G
M
-5.
ieiter was nonfixistent. In the premise
allegations the petitioner sought for _ :51′ ‘
reinstatement at the Mangalore _?a’1t1iri§:Cti§
the petitioner to pay the fail wag¢’$”– £0 ,
perinit the prosecutitm of fgr non
in1pleIne11ta1:ion of 1′ 1’? in
I.D.A.Nt;>.-43/99 of the
5. The; «§~2a<%;tiftio1:i;er§ "cg; notice of the
procee(J;.ing_s;,A A' claim by a reply (it.
:20.12.20024':'\1mekti§¢{§——§~éfi1ting out to the fact that
V merggjwas fit; ¥é(§}a tioii of Sections 17–~A, 18 and 19 of
that there was total compliance of the
a;m§gr1s%m of the modified award and to drop all
V _ rurtiier In addition it was contended that
H " stxjariéfer being an incident at' sexvioe, the petitiaimr
ffifiy justified in dirmting the 3% respondent H)
T féport at the place of posting, at its Jamnagar otfice.
M
-6-
6. It appears coriciliation proceedings
on about eight days of hearing and on Ftteae t
Conciliation Oificer recorded a
award was “apparently; _4’i111;43«Ie.1_’1fi}.t:*ntedV :1
management” and that it emf an
opportunity to the 3rd was
adjourned. On the the 3rd
respondent eflicer
Where after before the Labour
authority, by orfier
dt. 11.8.t2{)_O3 prosecution of the
petitiq1*;er_fo1; mason er the terms of the modified
Writ petition.
heard the learned counsel for the
vpaI’¥Zi€S,’~ the pieadings and examined the erder
undoubtedly the Commissioner for Labemr,
not consider the material on record, mere
fappropriately the factum of reinstatement of the 3rd
Lei
respondent, her conduct in accepting reinstatement and
requesting time t9 report to duty at Jamnagar, cot;-Ja_3_led
with the fact at’ reporting to duty and worked fear”
on 4.8.2007, as also the opixlien formed M
Labour Commissioner on 24. 1.2Qfl8,”asArecQ@ed§
proceedings of the said day, that
was apparently implementefl the ‘I ‘he
Labour Commissioraer ‘ V’ ‘ ‘ to” certajn
passages in the award recording a
fmding as 053:;-e Assistant at the
MangaloAre..V_Ofiice was not abolished and
the of éfd respondent was illegal. The
:”‘Ce1 i1Isissioner concluded that reinstatement
Office the place where the 3W1
_ respéndefit-.éé%as working at the time ef retrenchment
H H ” net the place of posting as set em in Annexure~G
– _1e’t_1ie”r.’
M
..8..
8. The Apex Court in Feroz Bin —v- Statg«§;v.’; ~ V.
Bengali relying on an earlier decision L” 2:; K V’
Gukulehand Dwarkacias Morarka::?–v- R
heid thus:
“‘I’he Judiciai eommitteefhs the 4am}
mentioned itself vob.eervée€’i” the aea1’1ci:ien
would be good if it pmgeg that
it had been. i._11eC€Ssary
facts had 3″ V pflitceii ” Sanctioning
authofitf might not have
been eeta’fe{i’efz;Aihe”-face caaf’-tl1e=eaI1ctioI1 itseif. it
tile;-a:fef<2revv—mat the sanction in the
presen__t"case=i_S 2.iAnQ4bjet:i.i"onabie."
fiéfi for gent of prosecution is after
1 facts into eonsidemtion. In the
instefit the Qfdfii' impugieci directing the
"'.__'};;etiti<}Iier'é7's: presecutjon makes reference to certain
VA re'?;ser§9afien of the Labour Court in the award and not
'11' fame noticed supra, more appropriately the
'Am 1%() SC 353
-9-
reinstatement, the conduct of the 3m’ respon<1er3ij'«–.
reporting to report to ciuty at Jamnagar and "
formed by the Asst. Labour {3ommis$ioI;ger'Vv'£f1et it;i1e:;re " V'
was "apparent compiiance of of
This in my opinion were re1era:rxtV_facrS riot
be eschewed in the deeisron "p»recees;"–it'-r§11ay be
that the petitioner is the plea of
complianm of proceedings,
but that " tire authority directing
prosecugiozg T'¢:;:;mn .cc=nsideratiox1 of relevant
materia}. " 'In the matter, the eréer
i331pu4g;'1ec.¥.. sufTers_ frbmV'ar1 error apparent on the face of
' rhe . unsxistamable.
* the petiiien is aliewed. The erder fit.
‘:.Am1exu.re–A ef the 15* respondent is quashed
proceedings remitted fer consideration afresh
extending reasenable opportunity 61’ hearing to the
, :.”parties concerned and to pass erders strictly in
UK
.30.
accordance with Law and in the light of the ”
supra.