as: THE HIGH Comm' 0}? KARNATAJ£A_AT Isméfimks
DATED THIS THE 13th mar OF:'~H0'§E§§4BER"fl8'
BEF(3f§1?§.V.. A %
THE HOWBLE MR. as Bomjnm.
WRYI' PE?I'FTIO §: sci,
8610/2007(LTEI?)_LTAL--
BETWEEN:
W.P.NO.325t§/2C_1')?53:.é»..f;7__ " j
1 CAUVERY h"_EEF<'AVA.Ri"~N}GAMA LIMITED
REPRESENTED-»BY'»TITS._ '
£viANAGING 'i3IREjCI'0R_," ~ «.
4TH FLOOR COFFEE BGARD BWLDING,
No.1, DR. AM.I3ED}{AR"'VEEI)}}!
¢ .BAi's.'.GALOR
V 'THE ASSISTAIWF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
. 1.Nc,~,_3',~%R;aHABIL:TAT10N SUB mv'1sI<3N,_
MaAR.'RA{mV:_Av s'm*1v.,;
A Jami') :"
~ _ - $1,; NAGARAJ
* ;s2_s ¥I::A;2:s,
" JAVALGI, ARASIKER ETIAUK
HASSAN axsmxcr 573 is
RESF'ONDEN'I'
.4
6
(By 811' : V S NAIK. MDV. 1
'ms w.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 2279? me % ~ ,
C0Ns*I*mmoN OF {mm PRAYING TQ...cALL;r«'0R»I12Ds«-V '
PERTAINING TO THE AWARD D1'. 5.13.2006 ..PAss,Ei>_";3?fmE
LABOUR COURT. CHMAMAGALUR IN-._LI}'.'R;..HO.'?4/~.1996"VID§Z§:;
ANX--C.
W.?.NO.8610/2007
SR1 J s NAGAI-?AJU'
SON OF' SRl.J.G. SIDDAPFA'3HE'I;"IY .
AGEI} ABOUT 47 YEARS ~ _ 1
R/AT PETEBEEDI, JAVACAL T " *
ARASIKERE 'l'ALUK,_ _
DIST' HASSAN - : '
i'*'E'T'I'i'IONER
(By Sri S1~m:':: & §$i;gi~.Uui,§x N :;itjLKARN1,ADv., )
AND: 1 & M .' _ _ V. .
1 CAUVERY :«IEf;RA\.%a"&1::_'rJzNGAMA LTD
era FLOGR. COFFEE BQARD BUILDING
...a:o;1=. DR.AIvI3EDK£;sR VEEDH!
- ?{"+;Ai§:<.?zALQRE:-0 1" """ "
"'ifHE};CéS;*If"§;;<EcU*:'IvE ENGINEER Eli
RE'?-iE&E%_I1.i.TATION SUB DIVISION
. 'RAILWAY STATION
'~._HASSANF'
RESPONDENTS
1* V’ * *»i;B3’*L’3.(;1t : ‘SHWETHA ANAND. ADv., 3
‘THIS W.R FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF’ THE
‘”CC,3NS”f’iTU'{‘ION OF’ INDIA PRAYING T0 QUASH THE AWARD
_ PA-SSE9 BY THE LABOUR COURT, CHIKKAMAGALUR, IN 3.0.,
“.REF’.NO.?4/1996 IZY1′. 6.3.2006, THE CERTEFIED COPY OF’ IS
” PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANX-A, TO THE EXTENT THE
PETITIONER {S AGGRIEVED
{pl
These: Writ Pcatitions ooming heéiifigii Vc’_l:ay,’:_V u u
the Court made the following : I T
The employer has i11*:vtv”1i1¢3s.ti;:)11–
6.3.2006 passed in H3}? :”1~{;».74,!’£92=§E$; fla’s”‘t1ae :Labour
Court gaming I’ci11:s3t1’¢”1’4’ii1=:V1.:_1’ue1:a”t-v–~%’iV:=.:ir party in
has been
questioned : fl}’I:_W0rkn1an insofar as
the dcniafi caf t
2. arrayed in difilexcnt ranks in
would be Icfcnrwd to in the rank
V. afifiifiafl befom the Labour Court for the purpesc of
‘ty.
‘ ” I ‘3, The first party had raised a dispute contending that
were dispensed with by thc respondents wiflzxout
‘ ‘ A» ” of the provisions of the ixziciustrial Disputes Act
and the same was It-zfermd to the Labour Ckzsurt at
is
Chiclcrnagalur in ID}? No.74/1996. The
first party was that he was wor1:ing:v’.éu; éi
second party from 26.2.1986 onwmtis, ‘It.was. aJ1¢fge(i
aflzr 25.4.1937 his
complying the pmvisicixgg intittsuiai
Disputes Act In the said
disputn, the: fimt party is
not entitled t;;’ti$’¢._ ;;»;4:.:1 _’m Court, after
noticing the s it, had come to the
mnciusiég worked fir more than 240
days and :53,’ ‘smki. ” ticm canncat be s11stamcd’
_ provisions of the Act and in that
_ilT1¥Z’AlfliE4§A!:’.’!”l3′.€_’I’c£I§ reinstattmtent of the first party to the
5:2″ ‘@ :a1A Labour Court has however darned’
V _ backfiragcfi continuity of scnwes’ .
4. in this regard, the peruse} of the award passed by
«Eh: Labour Court wcmm indicate that the Labour Cou:rt has
12
noticed’ the evidence tendered on behalf of the m§n”‘a’ « .35′ _
through MWs.1 and 2 and aim the u “~
behalf of the fimt party as ww.1. Th; T
the management at Ex:hs.M1 :13. on
first party at Ex.W.1 am: also notnfi _
5. A further ilidicatc that
the Labour has V<Vt:\1':€.'.*£:;!VViV".".I2I-Cit? which was
availablég befoxfi cdrme to the conclusion on
noticing for which he was empioyed
from" year 1936' :?has come to the oonciusian that he
.f§i1=-..mere than 24-0 days. Insofar as thc finding
Court with mgaxd to this aspect of
_ the 1:i:t.attc_j1* naming to the oanclusion that the fimt party
_. , 4' the, conditions of Scctioza 258 and thcmfirm the
as oontcmplatsw under section 25?' should have
f camprzzed with is in accxmrianoe with law and the same
" <*:annot be said to be erroneous.
2
6. Having smtccl go, the questkgn
to the nature of relief which is .12)-l)_c In}%ih;’;§;§ga§:d%;”
the contentions of the second t1 1}e delay
in raising the dispute Court
and after noticing’ the the Hoxfblc
Supreme Court Athat only on that
basis, the the relief would
have to of the Labour Court is
also in therefore suswnable. In
any evmt, cvién utho13ghAth锑é;eoond party had contended that
9 years, what requires to be
-‘the pzeseent case, it was a mfcmnce made
to and if the date on which the dispute was
the authorities is (xmsidemd, the delay would
as stated. Though the dispute was raised at an
paint of fimc, some time had cxapsed by the (‘mac the
.4 hm decided he mibr the mataer an the Labour
is
Court. Thcrcfoxt, even on this aspect the _A
juatified.
7. However, the onlys' far aztonaideration in this petition is 'iiilltixaatc relief which has been At the ca-utset, it mquirea to of this nature, where the conclusion that the wager and in that view, acme t9 the conclusion
that he Vvisv1éafiug§*1′.g§%.§;e2as»:étcment in that capacity, the
{about also : in not granizhg the benefit of
” backwages and to the saxd’ extcnt,
filgcd by the first party would have to an.
., AA as the xeizzsmhsracnt granted by the Labour
has been assailed by the second wty
“-.J;:”a’aT11agc:u1c11t, it is to be ncticad that the ultimate
‘ U reinstatement is 1:0 the post of daily wager. In this mgard, no
1
f’
detaiiwd discussion is nccessazy since this aspgapfis izdmom’ ”
res intcga inasmuch as the Hon’b}4;é;
as this Cacurt has neticod the similar véittiiaflonsjbigd. ‘V
that in a mattscr where thcxiy. oi’ the
pr0vi51on’ s of Section he of
reinstatcment but the sam’ by payment of
compensation tp 2 V
9.:”: In–. to the quantum of
oompcnsafrkm ta} ‘there are varied views which
have” ~ oofxsider this aspect of the mattcr, the
r1 the fiat party has relied on a decision
_ Bench of this Ccmrt in w.A
_Ne.569/G3’ the case of K.M..SOMASI-IEKARAIAH vs.
EXEQUTi’JE ENGINEER (13.13. (LIN 21.3.2903). The zeanmd
,é<3§iI1–s:5::i woufi contend that the facts mzising in the said case
warm; mzlar" ' to the fiacts in the present case. As such the
" c<:s:mpensaiian awmvdad in the said case Imuires to be
«E
awarded in the present case as Wei}.
ocwuusel far the 5%} party management. wouitgi H
that in fact the learned Single qadge. of f V'
W.P.No.96'?2/0'7 disposed of on 25.o'i4e2c}:i3
compensation of Rs.50,()OO/-. V» nfiifiejng of " V
the matter, it is seen that _ jLld.g:I I1€31tV_i§Vh€I'Ci1l
Rs.50,0{)O/~ was 153*' Judge was
called in quesu'o;a_Ai.-an fhe;sa"W1d" I'\}.I;;ie:.'gappea1_ .%:§¢a§.'569;os. This
cam-t matter relied on a
judgzrnefit of Court in the case of
SEETHARAu1\i!._.. MsI{V)VV' MOTILAL NEHRU FARMERS
II LLJ 688) to come to the
the mmpcnsafion would be in a sum of
fieugh the said compensation was awarded
V — thertéin, is to be noticed is as to whether in the pmscnt
4_ thvé' cast would admit of sixnilar circumstances to
similar compensation. The said case before the
VT " fiifisbn Bench was the case of Civil Enginetar who was
" working as a daily wamr, who was aged about 40 years. In
2
the said case also, a zxmiacntion with regard to .
delay in raising the dispute was In ” = ‘V
fht: facts thczcin, in the present ting.» “‘{-§ag6r:;_*A
was m Enginaering Graduate
years when the dispute was Ciourt.
in mt, the dciay in the
delay which has tfinothcr aspect
of the mattcr that in a case of
this natum cznginecrizng graduate
and “years at this juncture, the
possibility in government would he
, to» depend on private employment.
AV’:’VKc§f:’pé11g aspects ‘m view, the award passed by the
as grmting the zeinstaiemcnt would
V — havettio to held that in lieu of Iflmstatnment, the
” K ‘ management would pay compensation of
‘.”A’*_.i’i”é..fi1′;U(},OOO/- to the fitst party within a period of mm
Vt “motlths fimn the date at’ furnishing a certified” copy of tlfm
‘ ” order.
L
‘ru
With the above modification, both the pcuuons__ si¢apc£V*.T.jj’
disposed of. No order as 13:) costs.