IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, PRESENT Q I I THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE yf.G.S I AND THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE B'.'II?V.NIAGAP.A:TR:NA WRIT APPEAL No.S}42_}2Qo8IE»TER) 1' BETWEEN: A I I I K SMT P K OMANA W/O SRIANAND; AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS' " L S . » WORKING AS sACI:;.O'LINT.S ASSISTANT. PREMIER IRRIGATION"EQUIPM--EE=lf"FS LTD. NOW ILLEGALIXTERMINIATEB. FRQNE SERVIC E'§',,R[r®T Dr)_OR..NO_.9 19.,/__2A,..%5TH 'B' K.B.E1;TENSIOI\I, DAVANAGERE-2 ~. ' . " _ ' - APPELLANT [By M/SS1}-BBA R;A:_0._&' CO...) " _ I. 'MAI\IAGE-EIENT OF PREMIER IRRIGATION " =,fIBy..M/S S.N.MURTHY ASSOCIATES) EQUIPMENTS LTD, 7TH MYSORE ROAD _ BA.NGA1,_O~RE-26, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 2. TEE SR TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE NO;_3139, M.C.COLONY 'B~'~ BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-4 RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/ S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 18682/2006 DATED 9/4/2007. This Appeal coming on for prly. hearing this 'day. SABHAHIT J., delivered the following:- * JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful..p:et;iti’orie.r in ”
W.P.No.18682/2006 being aggrieved
learned single Judge decliningpto interfere order’ 9
dated 22.10.1997 passed in
I.D.NO.79/1990.
2. The appellant herein’ an Accounts
Assistant respondent and
was being,paiedf”a of Rs.550/– per month.
She was erititledp’to:i:ProVé9devnt*Fund, ESE and other benefits.
She waslputon two years and probation was
confirrncd on” It is the contention of the
the services came to be terminated by the
1jes’pondei1t_~inariagement. without complying with the
proe;isio’n’s.oi” Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is
averred ‘that the services of the petitioner came to be
9′ terrti1’nated by order dated 25.9.1990 and she had raised the
M V. dispute before the Labour Court. According to the Petitioner,
the Labour Court after enquiry held against the writ
petitioner and the Labour Court has not at all considered the
material on record in the proper perspective and therefore,
the award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set
aside. Being aggrieved by the said award passed’4,by.”_th_Ve
Labour Court dated 22.10.1997, the petit_ioner..’_’vfilled:
W.P.No. 18682/ 2006 by contending that the award::pa’s.s:edA by: l’
the Labour Court was illegal and li=abie…toLblerrset’
though she had demanded.<an__ amount oft'-rtgéstooij/';i,
Rs.l7,000/~ only has been is case of
closure of the unit, but4_.Q"the petitioner was
illegally terminated without in contrary to
the provisionsfofindustrial} Learned single
Judge aften tilled/.'jcopunlsel'lappearing for the writ
bylulordler dated 9.4.2007 held
that this f'telr:~nination of service, but it is a
casegof closure .of';.unitV'of first respondent at Davanagere
V' had been lcllosedas per EX.M} dated 7.8.1990, neither
_ the " p.etitio:1"er_Vwas transferred nor terminated from service
norldisrriissied': and in turn, she was allowed to have closure
conlperisation for the closure of the unit at Davangere.
ljiowever, the petitioner has accepted the same and the
petitioner has admitted in her cross~examination that the
"management had offered Rs. 17,000/– compensation but she
had demanded Rs.25,000/- and therefore. the order of the
Labour Court. is justified and does not Call for interference in
Vti'
exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Being aggrieved by the order.
learned Single Judge dated 9.4.2007'. this appeal _
the writ petitioner.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for
and the learned counsel for the
4. Learned counsel pveltiitiorterhiehemently argued
that the learned’Cjsingleigludge ixzsaiisil-1/f1or._._i.ustified in holding
that it is nota ‘fro1tf,§;;e’t’trice and it is a case of
theprovisions of the lndustriai
Disputes lea.rned.–~single Judge has also failed to
note that the V_Labo’urA’=Co’urt was not justified in confirming
‘ t.h’e..orc1Aer termination and after awarding compensation
ottght tod_haVe_:a1lowed the application and set aside the order
reipnstatinggt:t.b;e appellant.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submitted that the respondent–unit has been closed as per
it Ex.i\/[-1 produced before the Labour Court dated 7.8.1990
the appellant was paid closure cornpensation in accordance
with the provisions of the industrial Disputes Act and the
respondentmianagement obtaining permission under
Section 25–N of the Act was not necessary and closure.
been done after paying closure compensation in l
with law in respect of all the employees_..Vi–nc_luding._ti1e”
appellant herein and the IIiE!.1’l£1gf:.-‘fl1|i’I:’l.1L,’A
Rs.25,000/– which she demanded as”r_:o’ntendued3 A’oefoi*e°’:the
learned single Judge in additionv’t’o._tl1e closurelurjmpensation
already paid.
6. We have caiiefui ~c’¢n’s1;ieira+.:p§i§’ to the contention
of the learned and scrutinised the
material on record would clearly
show that the has been closed on 7.8.1990
and Vtherefo”re,p’ the; qt._es”tion of termination of services or
‘d V’ reinsitaztement ofx”th’e”*petitionei- would not arise. Admittedly,
the paid compensation with the closure of the
as flaw and the same is not disputed and the
appeiialnf demanded an additional amount in addition to the
closure compensation already offered and though the
Vrespondent~n1anagement is ready to pay additional amount
of Rs.25,000/– as demanded by the appellant as admitted in
her cross–examination, the same is not accepted by the
appellant. ‘i’here is a concurrent finding on the question of
fact that there is a closure of responclermunit and that it is
not a case of transfer or termination of the appe11anj;Vefroa;1
service and therefore. the compensation which hasj’beer1~ é
in accordance with law. Therefore, we do r10f.~vfin_:d.an§fgo0d”‘
ground to take a different View conti:ary:t,Q« tgheorgglers’
by the Labour Court and the»IearnedV”sir1″g_1e Jjui*;gev’Va«nd’:’:the
same does not call for interference.._ir1 this {r;.t1~a*–¢bu£~;5 appeal.
Accordingly. the appea1’i.s “c”1isrr.EAis$etc1\ 1
V {V£fiSABHAHH)
‘ JUDGE
. . ‘ . ‘I ‘ . – ‘
V ‘” ” ‘ ” ‘ (BALNAGARATHNA)
JUDGE
S1: