IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION No.51243/2017(L-RES) Between:
SRI THILAK RAO S/O LATE KRISHNOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT KUPPALLI VILLAGE MELUR POST K R NAGAR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 602. .. PETITIONER (BY SMT USHA M V, ADV.) AND:
1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.3, HARANGI CANAL SUB-DIVISION SALIGRAMA, K.R.NAGAR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 602.
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR CNNL, CAUVERY BHAVAN COMPLEX GOKULAM 4TH STAGE MYSORE – 570001. ..RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE E DATED 19.06.2014, PASSED IN REFERENCE NO.TWENTY-EIGHT/2013 BY THE COURT OF THE LABOUR COURT AT MYSORE BY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner has challenged the correctness and legality of the order dated 19.06.2014, passed by the Labour Court, Mysore whereby the learned Labour Court has dismissed the claim statement filed by the petitioner.
2. Briefly the facts of this case are that the petitioner claims that he was appointed on 26.04.1984, as a daily wage worker by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Harangi Canal Sub-Division, Saligrama/the respondent No.1. He further claims that he had continued the work till 25.05.1985. However, after 25.05.1985, he was not permitted to work. Thus, his services were terminated orally, without following the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the Act’ for short), namely Section 25-F of the Act. After a lapse of twenty-eight years, the petitioner finally raised a labour dispute. Since, the conciliation proceedings failed, a reference was made to the Labour Court. In order to support his case, the petitioner examined himself as a witness, and submitted three documents. On the other hand, respondent also examined a single witness, and submitted twelve documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Labour Court dismissed the claim station. Hence, this petition before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mrs.Usha M V, has submitted that despite the fact that petitioner had worked for more than an year for the respondent no.1, his services were terminated without following the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Therefore, the learned Labour Court is unjustified in rejecting the claim statement filed by the petitioner.
Secondly, even after the termination of his services, the petitioner kept on submitting representations as is obvious from Ex.W.2. Despite the submission of representations praying for reinstatement, no action was taken by the respondent no.1. Therefore, after a lapse of twenty-eight years, the petitioner had no other option but to raise the labour dispute. Hence, the reference is not delayed. Therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set-aside 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned award.
5. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that the learned Labour Court has noticed the circumstance that despite the fact that the burden of proving that he had worked for more than 240 days was on the petitioner, he failed to discharge the said burden. Petitioner had clearly admitted that there was no appointment order in his favour. In his cross examination, he further admitted that he was not even aware whether he was appointed against a sanctioned post, or on a temporary one. Therefore, the petitioner could not even establish the fact that he was a workman working under the respondent No.1.
6. Although, the petitioner had submitted the copies of the representations filed by him, none of the representations bear any endorsement of respondent No.1. Thus, it is absolutely unclear, whether representations were filed before the respondent No.1 or not?
7. Admittedly, the petitioner was allegedly not permitted to work from 25.05.1985, yet from 1985 to 2012 the petitioner maintained absolute silence about the entire issue of denial of work. Therefore, learned Labour Court is justified in concluding that the petitioner must have been employed at other establishment. Hence, he has kept mum over the entire issue for twenty-eight years.
Lastly, admittedly, the labour dispute was raised after an inordinate delay of twenty-eight years. Therefore, the entire case is hit by delay and laches.
8. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE brn