Back
2003 Supreme(Kar) 916
Karnataka High Court
Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D. - Appellant
Versus
Karnataka State Government Daily Wage Employees Federation - Respondent
Decided On : 10-31-03
W.A. : 7696 of 2000
K.GOVINDARAJ, RATNA N.SHIVAYOGIMATH
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the dispute, the impact of inordinate delay in raising the dispute, and the entitlement to reinstatement based on the nature of employment.
Headnote:
Labour Court - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25-F - The dispute referred was as to whether the Appellant was justified in terminating the services of Smt. Nirmala Bai from service with effect from May 27, 1985. The Labour Court took the view that Smt. Nirmala Bai had put in more than 240 days of service and as such the Appellant was not justified in terminating her service. The Labour Court passed an award for reinstatement of Smt. Nirmala Bai into service with continuity of service and back-wages and all other consequential benefits. The Labour Court, however, reserved liberty to the appellant to terminate the services of Smt. Nirmala Bai after reinstatement, in accordance with law. The award passed by the labour Court was affirmed by the learned single Judge. The appellant challenged the correctness of the Award passed by the Labour Court as well as the order made by the learned single Judge, made four submissions. The appellant is entitled to succeed in this appeal and the award passed by the Labour Court and the order made by the learned single Judge is liable to set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from the termination of services of Smt. Nirmala Bai by the Appellant. The Federation claimed that the termination was unjustified and sought reinstatement with back-wages. The Labour Court found in favor of the Federation, directing reinstatement with continuity of service and back-wages. The Appellant challenged this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the dispute raised by the Federation was not maintainable as the Public Works Department could not be treated as an 'industry' and Smt. Nirmala Bai was not a 'workman' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court also held that the claim for reinstatement should have been rejected due to the inordinate delay in raising the dispute. Additionally, the Court found that the services of Smt. Nirmala Bai were taken on a daily-wage basis in a Government Department, and the order of reinstatement cannot be made on the sole ground that the Project for which her services were appointed is no longer in existence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the dispute, the delay in raising the dispute, and the nature of Smt. Nirmala Bai's employment and entitlement to reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the dispute raised by the Federation was not maintainable, and the claim for reinstatement should have been rejected due to the inordinate delay in raising the dispute. The Court also found that the order of reinstatement cannot be made on the sole ground that the Project for which the services were appointed is no longer in existence.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court and the order made by the learned single Judge.
( 1 ) THE Appellant in this appeal was the petitioner in the Writ Petition. In this appeal, the appellant has called in question the correctness of the Order dated September 19, 2000 made in the Writ Petition No. 15020 of 2000 by the learned single Judge confirming the order dated October 29, 1999 made in I. D. (LCM) No. 64/1994 by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and back-wages from the date of termination of service till the date of reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as follows: the Appellant in this Appeal is the assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works department. The respondent is the Karnataka state Government Daily Wage Employees' federation [hereinafter referred to as 'the federation']. The State Government, by means of its order dated September 24, 1994, was being of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the appellant and the federation, referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Mangalore under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. The dispute referred was as to whether the Appellant was justified in terminating the services of Smt. Nirmala Bai from service with effect from May 27, 1985? and, if it is not justified, for what relief the said smt. Nirmala Bai was entitled to?
( 3 ) THE case of the Federation is that Smt. Nirmala Bai was working as helper from november 1, 1983 till May 27, 1985 continuously for a period of more than 240 days on daily-wage of Rs. 9 (Rupees nine only); and with effect from May 28, 1985 her services came to be abruptly terminated without any prior notice and without payment of any compensation and in violation of the provisions under Section 25-F of the Act. It is also the case of the Federation that refusal to give work to smt. Nirmala Bai from May 28, 1985 is wholly unjustifiable, illegal and therefore she is entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and back-wages. However, the claim made by the federation was seriously disputed by the appellant in the course of the proceedings before the Labour Court. However, it was admitted by the Appellant that Smt. Nirmala bai was working on daily-wage basis but without any appointment order and her appointment being purely on daily-wage basis, she was not entitled to seek for relief of reinstatement with back-wages. It was also contended that the regular appointment in the establishment of the Government departments was required to be made only after complying with the selection process and since Smt. Nirmala Bai's appointment was not made complying with the selection process, she had no right to seek reinstatement to duty. It was also further contended that the appellant not being an 'industry' and Smt. Nirmala Bai not being a 'workman', the dispute referred was without jurisdiction and therefore the Labour court had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The Labour Court, on consideration of the material on record took the view that Smt. Nirmala Bai had put in more than 240 days of service and as such the Appellant was not justified in terminating her service. In the light of the said conclusion, the Labour Court passed an award for reinstatement of Smt. Nirmala Bai into service with continuity of service and back-wages and all other consequential benefits. The Labour Court, however, reserved liberty to the appellant to terminate the services of Smt. Nirmala Bai after reinstatement, in accordance with law. The award passed by the labour Court was affirmed by the learned i single Judge. Aggrieved by the said order, as noticed by us earlier, this Writ Appeal is filed.
( 4 ) WE have elaborately heard Smt. Ratna n. Shivayogimath, learned Government pleader, appearing for the Appellant and Sri K. Govindaraj, learned counsel appearing for the federation. The learned Government Pleader challenging the
