IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.2369 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
1 . KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MYSORE RURAL DIVISION BANNIMANTAP ROAD, MYSORE-570 001.
BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER 2 . KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT COPORATION MANDYA DIVISION KSRTC BUS STAND BUILDING MANDYA – 571 401 BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE) AND:
ANTHONY RAJ, S/O SSAGAYA MERI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O NO.58, 2ND CROSS KALAMMA TEMPLE STREET, THAVAREKERE, MANDYA - 571 401.
(BY SRI. K.SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 11.4.2014 IN APPLICATION NO.17/2013 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, MYSORE VIDE ANNEXURE-H; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GOURP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner-Management is knocking at the doors of Writ Court being aggrieved by the judgment & order dated 11.04.2014, a copy whereof is at Annexure-H whereby, the Labour Court, Mysuru having allowed respondent-claimant’s application under 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has directed it to re-fix respondent-workman’s pay by adding increments earned by him from 26.08.2009 within two months with a default clause of levy of interest @ 10% p.a.
2. After service of notice the respondent-workman having entered appearance through his counsel resist the writ petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, the impugned order is found unsustainable for the following reasons:
(a) the service particulars that are meticulously mentioned in a tabular form at Annexure-C show that even during the period between 1996 and 1999 the petitioner has been granted increments which the Labour Court failed to advert to in the right perspective; and, (b) the other lacuna which infects the impugned order is the wrong legal premise which the Labour Court has acted upon as to the penalty of withholding of increments; it is a settled principle of law both in Labour and Service Jurisprudence that the penalty of withholding of increments is always with prospective effect in the sense, that the increments that have already accrued due cannot be withheld; thus there is an error apparent on the face of the record that warrants indulgence of this Court.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds and impugned order is set at naught.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DS