Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
The Management of Dr. Ambedkar Para Medical Education Society (R) - Petitioner
Versus
Sri Shambhu Gowda, S/o. Late Hucheche Gowda - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7032 of 2022 (L-RES)
Decided On : 13-04-2023
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33(C) (2), (C)(3), (C)(1), 2(s), 10, (1) - Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 - Section 20, (1), (2) - Workman - Management was reshuffled - Not paid full wages - Seeking for issue order and call for lower court records in Application - Set aside Order passed by Hon’ble Presiding Officer, Labour Court – Whether order passed by Labour Court suffers from any legal infirmities - Workman had never worked in capacity of Administrative Officer in institution and that workman was not qualified to be appointed as an Administrative Officer in institution - Para 14.3.
Finding of the Court: Perusal of objection statement filed by employer before Labour Court indicate that contention of employer before Labour Court was that workman had never worked in capacity of Administrative Officer in institution and that workman was not qualified to be appointed as an Administrative Officer in institution - Any party to a litigation is put to election as to stand he intends to take - Employer having taken stand that workman could not have been appointed as an Administrative Officer and that he did not have capacity to work as an Administrative Officer cannot now in an appeal contend that claim filed by workman before Labour Court could not have been considered since he was not a workman but was appointed as an Administrative Officer - It is clear that there was an employer employee relationship between petitioner and respondent - Respondent-workman had made a claim for certain amounts of money which had not been paid - This amount was not rebutted by employer by producing cogent evidence - Claimant coming within purview of Section 2(s) of ID Act, Labour Court has rightly considered matter and allowed claim of workman - Hence, Court do not find any infirmity in order.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner-employer is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs :
ii. Set aside the Order dated 11.01.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Presiding Officer, Labour Court, D.K. Mangaluru in Application No.01/2014 produced as Annexure-A.
2. The Labour Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru by way of order dated 11.1.2022 in application No.1/2014 had passed the following order :
The application filed under section 33(C) (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is allowed in part.
The Applicant is entitled for salary at the rate of Rs.3,000/-per month from 22.06.2000 to 31.05.2007 from the respondent. The applicant already received part of such salary shown in Ex.A15 and therefore, the amount already paid has to be deducted and remaining amount is to be paid by the respondent to the applicant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Such interest has to be calculated whenever each month salary falls due.
The applicant is entitled for salary at the rate of Rs.5,000/-per month from 01.06.2007 to 31.12.2007. The applicant already received part of such salary shown in Ex.A15 and therefore, the amount already paid has to be deducted and remaining amount is to be paid by the respondent to the applicant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Such interest has to be calculated whenever each month salary falls due.
The applicant is entitled for salary at the rate of Rs.6,000/-per month from January to December 2008, salary at the rate of Rs.7,000/-per month from January 2008 to December 2009, salary at the rate of Rs.8000/-per month from January 2010 to December 2010 salary at the rate of Rs.9,000/-per month from January 2011 to December 2011 and salary at the rate of Rs.10,000/-per month from January 2012 to November 2012 from the respondent. The applicant already received part of such salary shown in Ex.A15 and therefore, the amount already paid has to be paid by the respondent to the applicant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Such interest has to be calculated whenever each month salary fall due.
The relief claimed in respect of leave salary, gratuity, three months notice are hereby rejected.
3. The respondent-workman had filed the proceedings in application No.1/2014 claiming that :
3.2. The founder of the petitioner being Dr. H.C. Kaveri her husband, and sons were other members of the executive body, the petitioner was running two institutions, namely the School of Nursing and Para Medical services.
3.3. It was claimed that Dr. H.C. Kaveri expired on 16.3.2011 thereafter, the management of the petitioner was reshuffled, and a new committee was formed.
3.4. It was contended that the workman had not been paid full wages from the year 2000, as per the terms of the appointment made on 18.6.2000, which has been marked as ExhibitA1 as also the memo dated 1.6.2007 marked as Exhibit-A4 where under his salary was fixed at Rs.5,000/- with effect from 1.6.2007, he being entitled for additional increment of Rs.1,000/-per annum commencing from January of every year till his services in the institution.
3.5. On the said basis, a memo of calculation was submitted by the workman who placed on record the amounts to be paid and actual payment made and thereby deriving the balance amount due and payable, on which basis the workman sought direction to the employer to make payment of the said amount under section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
4. On service of notice the employer entered appearance and submitted that
4.2. the workman was working in an administrative capacity and as such could not claim the status of workman
Section 33(C)(1) of I.D.Act deals with situation where money is due to a workman under a settlement or an award.
Section 33(C) of I.D Act is reproduced recovery of money due from an employer.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a recovery application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act when the claim....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, requires a pre-existing right or an award passed by a competent cou....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court cannot entertain claim petitions and adjudicate the merits and demerits of the rights of the workman under Section 33(C)(2) o....
Discharged workers can claim benefits under S. 33 - C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
