JUDGMENT :

The appellant-workman filed this intra Court appeal against the order dated 30.03.2015 made in W.P.No.80058/2009 on the file of the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-District Manager Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, setting aside the order dated 18.09.2008 made in KID No.104/2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gulbarga and remanded the matter to the Labour Court with a direction to frame issue as to whether the Labour Court has any jurisdiction to entertain this claim petition before it and whether KCSR Rules are applicable to the workman or not.

2. It is the case of the appellant that he was appointed as Group-D employee under the respondent in the year 1988. The appointment of the appellant and others were not liked by some officers in the respondents department who wanted their men to be appointed and accordingly, there was removal of all the said employees including the appellant in the year 1989, which has resulted into having recourse to legal remedy. Because of the judicial verdict, all of were compelled to be taken back on duty again in the year 1991.

3. It is the further case of the appellant that he was rendering his duty honestly and to the full satisfaction of the Management and he was paid with the less wages of Rs.940/- per month, whereas the others are getting more than Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month. During the year 1997 when the workman was working with the respondent No.1 at Bijapur, he was not feeling well, therefore, he applied for leave and went for taking treatment from 24.10.1997 due to prolonged illness and he did not joined to his duty till July 1999. During the said period, he approached the respondent on few occasions and stated that he is unable to joined the duty. After recovering from his illness, he went for reporting duty, but respondents did not permit the appellant to join duty as he has been falsely alleged that he remained unauthorized absent from 24.10.1997 to 21.07.1999 and he was issued with the articles of charge, but the proper copies were not supplied to him and he has properly replied for the articles of charge as well as show cause notice for the articles of charge. Thereafter, based on the enquiry report, the appellant was compulsory retired from service by passing the order dated 27.11.2003. Therefore, the appellant was constrained to file claim petition under Section 10(4-A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and raised various contentions before the Labour Court in KID No.104/2004.

4. The present respondents filed objections before the Labour Court and disputed the allegations made and contended that the allegations made in para-5 of the claim petition are all false. The enquiry was conducted by them was in accordance with law. Every paper was given to him and inquiry was conducted according to KCSR(CCA) Rules and claimant was provided all the opportunities in the enquiry. He was never assured as has been stated by him. The respondent-Corporation is not an Industry as alleged but it is a Government undertaking Organization and has adopted the KCSR(CCA) Rules for administration. Hence, sought for dismissal of claim petition.

5. The Labour Court considering the contentions, issue No.2 was taken as preliminary issue and recorded the finding that the enquiry conducted against the present appellant was not fair and proper. Thereafter, the parties were allowed to adduce evidence before the Labour Court. The appellant was examined as WW.1 and has got marked Exs.W1 and W2. On behalf of respondent-Corporation, the District Manager was examined as MW.1 and has got marked Exs.M1 to M16.

6. The Labour Court considering both oral and documentary evidence by an order dated 18.09.2008 allowed the claim petition filed by the present appellant under Section 10(4-A) of the I.D.Act, dismissal order passed by the Management dated 27.11.2003/ 04.12.2003 came to be set aside and directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to