IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 36261 OF 2017 (L-RES) BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED. NO.39, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 1.
NOW AT TTMC A-BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR, B.M.T.C. BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE – 27.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.N. RAJGOPAL, ADV.) AND SMT. T. KEMPAMMA, AGED MAJOR, W/O SRI. G. THIMMIAH, R/O THATAVALU COLONY & VILLAGE, NEAR BUKKIVARE VILLAGE, KEMPASAGARA POST, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DIST.
... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 28.2.2017 PASSED IN I.D.NO. 3/2011 ON THE FILE OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEX-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the legality of the award dated 28.02.2017, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore, whereby the learned Labour Court has allowed the claim statement filed by the respondent – workman, has set aside the termination of service of the respondent – workman, and has directed the petitioner to pay full backwages, and other consequential benefits from the date of termination, namely from 10.07.1998 to 10.02.2004.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent – workman, Smt. T. Kempamma had joined the services of the petitioner – Company at its Mining Unit situated at Haranahalli Manganese Mines. Subsequently, she was transferred to the Thimmappanagudi Iron Ore Mines. Thereafter, she was transferred to Nidgal Granite Quarry, Kembal Post, situated in Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District. She further claimed that when she joined the services on 3.11.1975, she was 29 years old, as her date of birth was 10.02.1946. The said date of birth was entered by the petitioner in all the statutory records like EPF, B-register and service records. Even the Letter of Confirmation mentions the said date as her date of birth. Thus, according to the workman, she would be entitled to discharge her duties upto 10.02.2004, that is till she reaches the age of 58. However, her services were terminated on 10.07.1998 on the ground that according to the petitioner - Company, she had reached the age of superannuation on the said date. Despite her repeated efforts to convince the petitioner – Company to continue her services as she had not reached the age of superannuation, the petitioner – Company refused to reinstate her.
3. According to the respondent – workman, the other co-workers, who were similarly prematurely retired, had filed a writ petition before this court, namely W.P.No.5615/2001. The said writ petition was allowed in favour of the petitioners. Since the petitioner – Company was aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, it had filed a Writ Appeal, namely W.A.No.3460/2001 C/w. W.A.No.3459/2001. However, the writ appeals were dismissed by this court vide its judgment dated 12.06.2002.
4. The workman also pleaded that in order to illegally terminate the workman, physical medical examination was carried out; on the basis of the medical opinion, her services were terminated. However, the mandatory provisions of Sections 25 F, G, H & N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not followed by the petitioner – Company.
5. Despite the fact that the petitioner – Company was given ample opportunity to file its objection against the claim statement of the respondent – workman, the petitioner – Company chose to maintain a state of silence throughout the proceedings. After assessing the evidence, the learned Labour Court allowed the claim statement and hence the present petition before this court.
4. Mr. D.N. Rajgopal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was justified in terminating the services of the respondent – workman, as she had reached the age of superannuation. According to the learned counsel, since the respondent – workman was subjected to a medical examination, and the doctor had opined that she was 58 years old, therefore her termination was a legal one. Thus, the impugned award should be interfered with.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned award.
7. As mentioned, the petitioner – Company did not file an objection to the claim statement. Moreover, it did not submit any evidence, oral or documentary, to buttress its stand. In the absence of a rebuttal, the statement of the respondent – workman that her date of birth being 10.02.1946 has been accepted by the petitioner – Company and has been shown even in the official records, the said statement had to be accepted by the learned Labour Court.
8. Moreover, in case the petitioner – Company wanted to plead that the respondent – workman had been terminated after medical examination, the said plea had to be supported by cogent oral and documentary evidence. However, in the absence of cogent evidence, the learned Labour Court is justified in rejecting the said plea.
For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. The petition is dismissed.
sd/- Judge KS