IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.23618 OF 2019 (L-RES) BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF SREE GANESH GEARS PRIVATE LIMITED, PLOT NO.106, BELAGULA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE METAGALLI POST, MYSURU 570 016 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER MS. JACINTHA FERNANDES WORKING AT PLOT NO.106, BELAGULA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, METAGALLI POST, MYSURU - 570 016.
(BY SRI. MOHANA J. S., ADV.) AND S. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE SUBBA RAO NO.771, LIG-2, HUDCO, 1ST STAGE HEBBAL LAXMIKANTHANAGAR, ... PETITIONER MYSURU - 570017. ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2018, ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE LABOUR COURT AT MYSURU, PRODUCED AT ANENXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R In the instant petition, the petitioner has sought to quash the award passed by the Labour Court dated 04.10.2018 in I.D.No.3/2017.
2. The respondent was appointed on 31.03.1990 as an Operator and he resigned the job on 08.02.2003 and was relieved on 10.02.2003. Thereafter he was once again appointed, which is stated to be on contract basis. Thereafter he was discontinued from service since 08.08.2016. The petitioner refused to continue the services of the respondent. Thus the respondent has raised the dispute. The Labour Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the First Party proves that the Second Party has illegally refused him employment from 08.08.206 and that act of 2nd party is unjust and illegal?
2. Whether the First Party proves that the Second Party has violated the provisions of Section 25 F and N of I.D.Act?
3. Whether the Second Party proves that the First Party worked with it from 31.03.1990 till 10.02.2003 and resigned from job through tendering the letter of resignation on 08.02.2003 and he was relieved from duty on 10.02.2003?
4. Whether the 2nd party proves that the First Party was appointed on contract basis for a specific period and his contract period was for six months and it was extended on several occasions and thereby the contract came to an end by lapse of time and there was no retrenchment of his service as claimed by him?
5. Whether the First Party is entitled for the relieves prayed for?
6. What Order or Award?
3. Labour Court after due examination of respondent’s service particulars, read with the documents, is of the view that respondent-workman in the second spell has completed 240 days pursuant to Ex.M4. Thus he had the status of permanent worker. Labour Court appreciated the evidence and factual aspects in para Nos.23 to 25, and proceeded to pass award in favour of the respondent directing the petitioner to reinstate the workman within one month and further ordered for 50% backwages with reference to last pay drawn.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner, except stating that 2nd spell appointment is on contract basis, has not produced any materials. It is evident from the records that respondent had earlier rendered services with the petitioner for more than two decades and thereafter he had resigned the job. Further he was taken back to duty, afresh on contract basis. Even on contract basis the respondent has completed 240 days as is evident from the record. Therefore petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court dated 04.10.2018.
5. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE RD