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.35294/2017 (L-RES) BETWEEN THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED, NO.39, M. G. ROAD, BENGALURU – 01.
NOW AT TTMC A-BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR, B.M.T.C. BUILDING, K. H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027. BY ITS LAW OFFICER, M.G. BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED 57 YEARS. …PETITIONER (By SRI RAJAGOPAL D. N., ADVOCATE) AND SRI RANGASWAMY, AGED MAJOR, S/O LATE SRI HANUMANTHANAYAKA R/O ANATHI VILLAGE & POST, BAGUR HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 116.
…RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.04.2017 PASSED IN C.R.NO.97/2017 ON THE FILE OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU, IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner 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 respondent-workman wherein, the respondent-workman had challenged his illegal termination. By the said award, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman, with continuity of service, payment of full backwages, and other consequential benefits from the date of termination, i.e. from 26.03.1998, till providing employment to the respondent-workman.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Mr. Rangaswamy had joined the services of Mysore Minerals Limited in 1986, as a miner, at the Bhaktarahalli Chromite Mines, Chennarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District. Since his mother had become extremely ill, he had gone to his native place to take care of his mother from 07.02.1998, for about five weeks. Despite the care given by him, he lost his mother. Although the respondent- workman requested about sanctioning the leave, but instead of doing so, the petitioner issued three notices to the respondent-workman on 07.03.1998, 12.03.1998 and 23.03.1998. Having received the notices, the respondent- workman explained the difficulties faced by him with regard to the serious illness of his mother. Eventually, the respondent-workman reported to work on 26.03.1998. But the petitioner refused to allow him entering the mines. The respondent-workman pleaded that he should be taken back into the job. However, despite his pleas, the petitioner refused to take him back. Therefore, the respondent-workman was terminated from his service without following the mandatory provisions of Sections 25 F, G, H and N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (‘Act’ for short).
Eventually, a reference was made to the Labour Court. The respondent-workman examined himself as a witness, and submitted five documents. On the other hand, the petitioner examined a single witness, and submitted two documents. 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, vehemently contended that the petitioner was justified in terminating the service of the respondent. For, the workmen at the mines were medically examined. Since the respondent was found medically unfit to carry on the arduous work of a miner, his services were terminated. Secondly, at the time of termination of his service, the respondent had accepted the payment given to him by the petitioner without any protest. Thirdly, although the respondent was terminated from his service on 26.03.1998, the reference was not made till 21.08.2007, i.e., after an inordinate delay of nine years. Despite the inordinate delay in making the reference, the reference has been answered in favour of the respondent-workman. Lastly, despite the fact that the workman had accepted the compensation paid due to termination of service, the learned Tribunal has directed that the respondent should be paid hundred percent back wages while reinstating him.
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 workers was carried out; the respondent-workman was found medically unfit, therefore, it was the petitioner's duty to establish the said fact. However, according to the learned Tribunal, the petitioner failed to submit any evidence, oral or documentary, 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-workman. 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 ground of limitation.
7. The learned Tribunal has also noticed the fact that the respondent-workman had explained the reasons for his unauthorized absence. Thus, the petitioner was required to follow the mandatory provision of the I.D. Act before terminating the services of the respondent-workman.
Therefore, the learned Tribunal is justified in directing that the respondent-workman should be reinstated.
8. 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 not gainfully employed.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that the respondent-workman has received the terminal benefits. In case, the respondent-workman has received the terminal benefits, the petitioner shall be free to deduct such amount from the back wages to which the respondent-workman is entitled to.
10. For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any merit in the present petition. Hence, it is, hereby, dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE mv