IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN Writ Petition No. 29326 of 2017 & WRIT PETITION NO. 30924 OF 2017 (L-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SADANAHALLI FELLSITE MINES REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. B. C. MUDDUMADAPPA, S/O. LATE SRI CHIKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS.
2. SRI. B. M. YATHISH BABU S/O. SRI B. C. MUDDUMADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PETITIONER NOS.1 & 2 ARE R/AT NO.196, 23RD CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560082.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI K. M. SOMASHEKARA, ADV. FOR SRI C. R. GOPALASWAMY, ADV.) AND:
SRI M. J. MAHENDRA EX. WORKMAN, SADANAHALLI FELLSITE MINES, KRS ROAD, NO.4, KALYANA BHAVANA, C/O SRI S. V. NAGENDRA, THYAGARAJA ROAD, MYSURU-570004.
... RESPONDENT THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.1.2017 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU IN PROCEEDINGS NO.CGA.NO.05/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners have challenged the legality of the order dated 24-01-2017, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, whereby the learned Labour Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent-workman, under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the Act’ for short), and has directed the petitioners to pay the workman, Rs.5,55,000/- [Rupees Five Lakh Fifty-five thousand only) towards arrears of salary.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the proprietors of the New Mysuru Industries. The respondent-workman, Mr. M. J. Mahendra, had joined the services of Sadanahalli Fellsite Mines. He was working under the petitioners. His post was designated as Works Manager. However, the workman claimed that although he may be appointed against the post called “Works Manager”, but he neither performed any managerial duties, nor any administrative duties. During the tenure of his service, the proprietor of the mining company wrote a letter on 14-05-1992 to Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology Department, Mysuru, wherein he had informed that the workman was authorized, by the petitioner, to receive the permits issued by the department. The workman also claimed that he worked on a consolidated salary of Rs.5,000/- per month, from January 1992 onwards. However, when he asked for the arrears of salary, his services were unceremoniously terminated, in April 2000. Despite the fact that he had submitted various representations to the petitioners, from 1997 onwards, for payment of arrears of salary, the representations went unanswered.
3. It is further claimed that on 02-05-1998, the ownership of the mines were transferred by Mr. B. C. Muddumadappa, to his son, Mr. B. M. Yathish Babu, the petitioner No.2. But, despite the transfer of ownership, despite the pendency of the representations, the respondent-workman was never granted the arrears of salary.
4. Therefore, in January 2013, the workman approached the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Mysuru. The Labour Enforcement Officer sent a letter to Mr. B. C. Muddumadappa on 17-04-2013. Since the matter could not be settled, the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, for adjudication.
5. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent- workman had pleaded that he has not been paid the arrears of salary from January 1992 till April 2000, at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. Hence, he has been denied the salary for nine years and three months, which tantamounts to Rs.5,55,000/-. Although the notices were duly issued to the petitioners, and were also served upon the petitioners, they did not appear before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the learned Tribunal passed the award dated 24-01-2017, as an exparte award. Hence the present petitions before this Court.
6. Mr. K. M. Somashekara, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised two contentions before this Court:- Firstly, since the workman was working against the post of Works Manager, he does not fall within the definition of a “workman” under the Act. Hence, he did not have the locus standi to file an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act; secondly, the notices were not served upon the petitioners, and therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in proceeding ex-parte against the petitioners.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned award.
8. Both, in his application and in his testimony, the respondent-workman had clearly stated that although he may have been appointed against the post of “Works Manager”, but he did not discharge either managerial, or administrative duties. For he had no supervisory role to play, nor had any dealings with appointment of workers, supervision of workers, grant of leave, or to act as a disciplinary authority. This statement of the respondent-workman, has not been countered by the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in concluding that the respondent fell within the definition of “workman”, contained in the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal did have the jurisdiction to deal with an application filed under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act.
9. As far as the second contention is concerned, suffice it to say that, according to the learned Tribunal, the notices were sent through registered AD. It is not the case of the petitioner that the address written on the registered AD, was a wrong one. Thus, the presumption of law does come into force that after the lapse of one month, the notice is deemed to be served. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel that the notices were never served, cannot be accepted by this Court.
For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petitions. They are hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Judge Rd/-