IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.33094/2018(L-TER) BETWEEN:
SRI. P.HARISH AGED 33 YEARS SON OF SRI. PUTTAIAH R/A EWS-18, 3RD CROSS 3RD BLOCK, KUVEMPUNAGARA MYSURU-570 023.
(BY SRI.NAIK.V.S., ADV.) AND:
…PETITIONER 1. THE LABOUR AND CONCILIATION OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR OFFICE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER MYSURU DISTRICT NO.35/A, NEW KANTHARAJ ROAD KUVEMPUNAGARA MYSURU-570 023.
2. THE MANAGER KARUNALAYA CHARITABLE TRUST SINDUVALLY NANJANAGUD, MYSORE-571 118 KARNATAKA STATE.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH JOIS M.V., AGA. FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO ANNEXURE-A; AND QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED: 05.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT VIDE REFERENCE, THE ORIGINAL OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A SINCE THE FIRST RESPONDENT ERRED IN REFUSING TO CONCILATE IN THE MATTER AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Sri.V.S.Naik, learned advocate for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.9.2017 to the Conciliation Officer, Nanjanagud with a request to intervene in the matter and direct the respondent No.2 to take him back on duty. It appears, after few meetings, the case was transferred to the Conciliation Officer, Mysuru. Thereafter, petitioner has received endorsement dated 5.5.2018 closing the proceedings on the ground that petitioner was absent continuously and second respondent being a charitable Trust does not come under the definition of ‘Industry’ under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
3. Sri.Naik learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that after the case was transferred from Nanjanagud to Mysuru, no notice was served upon the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner did not have knowledge about proceedings at Mysuru.
4. The learned Additional Government Advocate argued the matter supporting the impugned endorsement.
5. Perusal of the endorsement dated 5.5.2018 shows that the notice was issued to the petitioner. But no material is placed by the State to show that notice was served upon petitioner. Hence, the impugned endorsement is unsustainable in law.
6. In the circumstances, in the opinion of the court, it would be appropriate for the Conciliation Officer, Mysuru to hear the petitioner afresh and pass orders.
7. Resultantly, the petition merits consideration. Hence, the following.
ORDER a) The petition is allowed.
b) The impugned endorsement dated 5.5.2018 issued by respondent No.1 is quashed.
c) The petitioner shall appear before respondent No.1 on 31.10.2019.
Respondent No.1 shall hear the petitioner and respondent No.2; and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DM