IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION No.36264/2017 (L – RES) BETWEEN THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED No.39, M.G.ROAD BENGALURU – 1 NOW AT TTMC A – BLOCK 5TH FLOOR, B.M.T.C. BUILDING K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 27 (By SRI RAJGOPAL D.N., ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI KARUNAKARA AGED MAJOR S/O LATE SMT. RATHNAMMA & ANANDA SHETTY 2. SMT. RUKMINI W/O LATE SHIVARAM SHETTY MAJOR 3. MISS M.S. RASHMI D/O LATE SHIVARAM SHETTY MAJOR 4. MISS M.S. SUSHMA D/O LATE SHIVARAM SHETTY MAJOR …PETITIONER 5. MISS M.S. RESHMA D/O LATE SHIVARAM SHETTY MAJOR R1 TO R5 ARE R/O MELIGE POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577 415 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.04.2017 PASSED IN C.R.No.58/2008 ON THE FILE OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL – CUM – LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE – A, AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner, the Mysore Mineral Ltd, has challenged the legality of the award dated 21.04.2017, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal – cum- Labour Court, Bangalore, whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim statement filed by the workwoman wherein, she had challenged her illegal termination. By the said award, the Labour Court has directed payment of Rs.4,15,815/- for the loss of income sustained by the workwoman to the LRs of the deceased workwoman.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Smt. Rathnamma had joined the services of Mysore Minerals Limited in 1977, as a mazdoor (labourer), at the Thirthahalli Clay Mines, Thirthahalli Taluk, Shimoga District. During the course of employment under the petitioner, the workwoman was subjected to medical examination on 22.01.1998. According to the Medical Report, Smt. Rathnamma was aged more than 58 years. Hence, considering the age of the workwoman as 58 years based on the said Doctor Certificate, vide letter dated 27.07.1998, the petitioner terminated her services with effect from 17.07.1998. The workwoman claiming that her date of birth is 05.04.1948, further claimed that she is due to retire on 04.04.2008. Hence, her service has been terminated illegally by 6 years, 8 months and 17 days prior to her date of superannuation. Since the workwoman was aggrieved by the illegal termination of her service, she raised a labour dispute after ten years of termination of her service. On 04.08.2008, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court. After receipt of notice from the Labour Court, the petitioner filed its objections. In order to prove her case, the workwoman examined herself as a witness, and submitted 18 documents. However, the workwoman died in the course of pendency of the case before the learned Labour Court; her legal representatives continued the proceedings. After the death of the workwoman, her legal representatives were also examined as witnesses. On the other hand, the petitioner examined a single witness, but did not submit any document. After assessing the evidence, the Labour Court allowed the reference in the aforementioned terms. Hence, this petition before this Court.
3. Mr. D. N. Rajagopal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the petitioner was justified in terminating the service of the workwoman. Firstly, the workmen at the mines were medically examined. Since the workwoman was found aged more than 58 years, her services were terminated. Secondly, at the time of termination of her service, the workwoman had accepted the payment given to her by the petitioner without any protest. Thirdly, although the workwoman was terminated from her service on 17.07.1998, the reference was not made till 04.08.2008, i.e., after an inordinate delay of ten years. Despite the inordinate delay in making the reference, the reference has been answered in favour of the workwoman. Lastly, the learned Tribunal has directed that the LRs of deceased workwoman should be paid Rs.4,15,815/-.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned award.
5. Since it was the petitioner’s defence that a medical examination of the workwoman was carried out, and the workwoman was found aged more than 58 years, it was for the petitioner to establish the said fact. However, according to the learned Tribunal, the petitioner failed to establish the said defence. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in rejecting the plea raised by the petitioner.
6. The issue of limitation was raised by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal. However, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sapan Kumar Pandit vs. U.P. State Electricity Board and others [2001 II LLJ 788] and Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing–cum-Processing Service Society [1999 I LLJ 1260], the learned Tribunal has opined that the Limitation Act is inapplicable to the reference made by the respondent-workwoman. Considering the fact that the Industrial Dispute Act is a social beneficial piece of legislation, which is meant to protect and promote the interest of the labour class, even if there is an inordinate delay, the dispute cannot be rejected on the point of limitation.
7. As far as the issue of grant of backwages is concerned, suffice it to say that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly opined in the case of BHUVNESH KUMAR DWIVEDI V. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED [2014 (III) LLJ 478 (SC)], and SHIV NANDAN MAHTO V. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS [(2013) 11 SCC 626] that in case the termination is illegal, the backwages need to be paid by the employer to the employee, especially when the employer fails to prove that during the period of termination, the employee was gainfully employed.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that the respondent-workwoman had received the terminal benefits. In case, the respondent-workwoman has received the terminal benefits, the petitioner shall be free to deduct such amount from the backwages to which the LRs of the respondent-workwoman are entitled to.
9. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. Hence, it is, hereby, disposed of in aforementioned terms.
Sd/- JUDGE mv