Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Kar) 424

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, S. RACHAIAH, JJ.
THE MANAGEMENT OF SRI DHARMASTHALA MANJUNATHESHWARA EDUCATION SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DHAVALANAGAR, SATTUR, DISTRICT: DHARWAD - Appellant
Vs.
SURESH KUMAR S/O CHANDRANATH IJARI - Respondent
W.A. No. 100019/2020, W.A. No. 100022/2020 (LTER)
Decided On : 25-11-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant :SRI S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATE
For The Respondent:SRI RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE

Point of law : where there may have been delay in making a reference in terms of Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, there could be appropriate moulding of relief.

Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(1)(c) - Employees Service Rules, 2003 - Rule 25(a) and 58 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 227 - Termination from service - Acquittal - Domestic inquiry - Whether dispute raised challenging punishment imposed by management - On workman was acquitted from the charges in criminal case that was registered against him by way of a judgment of acquittal - It was thereafter on that workman is stated to have submitted his letter of resignation to management and had requested for releasing his service benefit - However it is not in dispute that said resignation was not accepted by the management - It is stated that on workman has sought for making of a reference in the conciliation proceedings - On Government has referred the dispute raised by respondent to the Labor Court Government while making a reference under Sec. 10(1)(c) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had referred dispute on two points –
Finding of the court:
Nature of activities of management and its field of activity delay on part of workman in seeking for a reference though does not defeat the right of workman to seek for reference of the dispute and its adjudication yet it could be an aspect to be taken note of while granting of back wages - Nature of termination as made out being stigmatic and as held by this Court as being impermissible and workman having been terminated without inquiry such termination being per se illegal back wages would follow as such termination was for no fault of workman- In fact even after acquittal in criminal case it would have been open for management to have inquiry and impose punishment of termination if breach of relevant rules was demonstrated or found to be correct during an inquiry - Such option of termination after an inquiry as per prevailing rules not having been exercised termination is illegal and back wages are to follow upon reinstatement - If reinstatement is only a concessional redressal whether back wages ought to have been awarded is a different question – the plea of the workman for grant of 100% back wages cannot be considered, as noticed various considerations need to be taken note of while awarding back wages including the nature of the activity of the management, the fact that the employee was not working for the said period and in order to maintain an appropriate balance between the rights of the workman and that of the management and being conscious that management ought not to be fastened with an undue financial burden while still granting an appropriate relief of reinstatement with appropriate back wages, no further enhancement of back wages as sought for by the workman is called for.
Result : Appeal Disposal of

JUDGMENT :

S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV. J

This Judgment has been divided into the following Sections to facilitate analysis :

I	Preamble	4 9
II	Contentions of the Management	9 11
III	Contentions of the Workman	11 12
IV	Consideration : (A) Finding of the Labour Court regarding delay in seeking reference of dispute (B) Abandonment of Inquiry (C) Stigmatic Termination (D) Award of Back Wages	12 13–17 17–19 19–22 22 30
V	Order	31 32

PREAMBLE:

The management of Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Educational Society has filed W.A.No.100019/2020 calling in question the correctness of the order passed in W.P.No.75525/2015 whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the award of the Labour Court dated 12.09.2012 passed in Reference No.10/2012 and had further directed that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with consequential benefits from the date of service till reinstatement with 50% back wages. The employee Sri Suresh Kumar Ijari has filed W.A.No.100022/2020 calling in question the order of the learned Single Judge only insofar as it relates to denial of back wages to the extent of 50% and has sought for direction for payment of full back wages. The parties are referred to as ‘Workman’ and ‘Management’ for the purpose of convenience.

2. The workman is admittedly an employee of the management and was appointed as Accountant/ Internal Auditor on 30.05.1999. The workman was terminated from service by a letter of termination dated 21.06.2006 with retrospective effect from 01.06.2006, which was preceded by an order dated 13.09.2004 keeping him under suspension.

3. The admitted facts also point out that the workman was involved in a criminal case and a FIR came to be registered against him. During the course of investigation he was arrested on 11.09.2004 and was in custody till 08.08.2005. On 08.12.2005 the workman approached the management and had sought for revocation of his suspension which was, however, not considered. On 04.05.2010, the workman was acquitted from the charges in the criminal case that was registered against him by way of a judgment of acquittal. It was thereafter on 25.02.2011 that the workman is stated to have submitted his letter of resignation to the management and had requested for releasing his service benefits. However, it is not in dispute that the said resignation was not accepted by the management. It is stated that on 18.04.2011 the workman has sought for making of a reference in the conciliation proceedings. On 14.03.2012 the Government has referred the dispute raised by the respondent to the Labour Court, Hubballi. The Government while making a reference under Sec. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) had referred the dispute on two points. The points framed by the Labour Court for consideration is in Kannada language and is translated and reproduced in English language as hereunder:

(1) Whether the dispute raised challenging the punishment imposed by the management of Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Education Society, Ujire, Dhaval Nagar, Sattur, Dharwad9 to its workman Sri Suresh Kumar Chandranath Ijari, aged 50 years, accounts section, care of Y.M. Veeresh, door No. 2907 Upstairs, Sriram Nilayam, 3rd cross, MCC ‘B’ Block, Davanagere-577 004, by order dated 21.06.2006 dismissing the workman from service to take effect from 01.06.2006 after a delay of four years and ten months, is valid?

(2) If it is valid, whether the punishment imposed by the management of Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Education Society, Ujire, Dhaval Nagar, Sattur, Dharwa-d9 to its workman Sri Suresh Kumar Chandranath Ijari, aged 50 years, accounts section, care of Y.M. Veeresh, door No. 2907 Upstairs, Sriram Nilayam, 3rd cross, MCC ‘B’ Block, Davanagere-577 004, by order dated 21.06.2006 dismissing the workman from serv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2021 Supreme(Kar) 424

Point of law : where there may have been delay in making a reference in terms of Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, there could be appropriate moulding of relief.

Cases Referred (4)

Judicial Analysis