IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION No.35290/2017 (L-TER) BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED, NO.39, M G ROAD, BANGALORE-01.
NOW AT TTMC A-BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR B M T C BUILDING, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-27, BY ITS LAW OFFICER, SRI BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJGOPAL D. N., ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI MUNIGOWDA S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA, MAJOR, R/O BETTEGOWDA DODDI (VILLAGE), KODIHALLI HOBLI, NARAYANAPURA POST, KANAKAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE-562117. ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.3.2017 PASSED IN C.R.NO.4/2009 ON THE FILE OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Aggrieved by the award dated 28.3.2017, whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent – workman, Mr. Munigowda, and to grant him 100% backwages along with all consequential benefits, the petitioner, Mysore Minerals Limited, has approached this Court.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Mr. Munigowda was appointed as Mazdoor in 1986. Subsequently, his services were confirmed. He continued to work for the petitioner at the Kebbihalli Unit of Kanakapura Taluk for thirteen long years. In 1999, he was transferred to the Kakegeri Dalmite Mine, located in Badami Taluk, Bagalkot District. During the course of his service, according to the respondent, a false complaint was filed by one Mr. Mallikarjunaiah against him. Therefore, by order dated 4.4.2000, the respondent was suspended from his service. However, the said suspension order was neither served, nor subsistence allowance was paid to him. Therefore, on 19.7.2000, the respondent submitted a representation. But the representation did not elicit any response till 15.10.2003. By endorsement dated 15.10.2003, the respondent was informed by the Manager of Kategere Unit that the respondent’s services were terminated by order dated 16.11.2000. Even this termination order was never served upon the respondent – workman.
3. Aggrieved by the termination order, on 13.6.2005, the respondent submitted a representation seeking a copy of the termination order. However, even then the said copy was not supplied to the respondent. Eventually, the termination order was served on 12.7.2005. Therefore, an industrial dispute was raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner against the order of dismissal. Since the conciliation proceedings failed, by order dated 29.12.2006, a reference was made to the Labour Court. In order to substantiate the case, the respondent examined himself as a witness, and submitted thirteen documents. On the other hand, the petitioner neither examined a witness, nor submitted any documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has passed the award as aforementioned. Hence, this petition before this Court.
4. Mr. Rajgopal D. N., the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal is not justified in directing the reinstatement, and grant of 100% backwages. For, the respondent had not worked for the petitioner from 2000 till 2017. Therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned award.
6. According to the respondent, initially he was suspended, and the suspension order was not even served upon him. During the period of suspension, he was not even paid the subsistence allowance. Subsequently, his services were terminated by order dated 16.11.2000. However, the services were terminated without following the mandatory procedure laid down by the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, the termination order is absolutely illegal.
7. In the cases 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], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that in case the termination is an illegal one, the employee would be entitled to 100% backwages. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel that 100% backwages could not have been directed to be paid, is clearly unacceptable.
8. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. It is, hereby, dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE MD