Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24042
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J
MADHUSRI D.M. – Appellant
Versus
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHIKMAGALUR ZILLA PANCHAYATH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 6328 OF 2020 (L-RES)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. N.SHESHADRI, GURURAJ R.
For the Respondents: SRI.ASHOK.N.NAYAK, SRI.ABHINAY.Y.T.
The court reaffirmed that the onus of proof lies on the employee to establish their employment status, which involves providing substantial evidence for claims related to wrongful termination under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2 (s), 10 (4-A) - Appointment and employment disputes - The petitioner sought to quash an award of the Labour Court rejecting her claim for reinstatement and benefits, after alleging wrongful termination following political changes in the Grama Panchayat - The Labour Court determined that the petitioner failed to prove her appointment and thus denied relief. (Paras 5, 9, and 17)
(B) Burden of proof - The responsibility lies on the petitioner to establish her employment status and entitlement which she failed to demonstrate. (Paras 10, 12, and 15)
(C) Judicial review scope - The High Court emphasized it does not serve as an appellate body regarding factual determinations made by the Labour Court unless clear illegality is established. (Paras 17 and 18)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. preliminary hearing and oral order by the court. (Para 1) |
| 2. challenge to labour court's award and employment status. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. allegation of discrimination and arguments against appointment cancellation. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. respondents' arguments about employment status and appointment validity. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. court's analysis of evidence and employment provide finality. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. final ruling upholding labour court's decision. (Para 17) |
| 7. final determination by the court regarding the labour court's award. (Para 18) |
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. N.Sheshadri and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash the award dated 22.07.2019 in I.D.A No.07/2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chikkamagaluru.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was working as a Project Assistant on contract basis in the office of respondent No.3 on payment of an honorarium of Rs.1,000/- for a period of one and a half years. During 2013, there was a newspaper publication regarding requirement of Data Entry Operator in the office of respondent No. 3 i.e., Shanuvalli Grama Panchayath.
Accordingly, petitioner applied to the said post.
4. The Grama Panchayath, after holding a meeting on 08.11.2013, had appointed the petitioner to the said post on 11.11.2013. It is the further case of the petitioner that she has been working to the best satisfaction of the higher officer without any interruption. Once again a paper publication was called out by the respondents in the newspaper for the post of clerk - cum data entry operator. The petitioner again applied for the said post along with 2 other applicants, and upon a meeting being held by the Grama Panchayath, Shanuvalli, the petitioner was appointed to the said post, and the appointment of the petitioner was sent to the Taluk Panchayath, Koppa, to forward the same to the Zilla Panchayath, Chikkamagaluru, for approval.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, after the appointment of the petitioner and the pendency of the approval for the appointment, elections were held for the Grama Panchayath, and the entire elected body changed due to the election results, and the newly elected body did not want the petitioner to continue in the said process and therefore wrote a letter to the Zilla Panchayath, Chikkmagaluru stating that her appointment was not in accordance with law, after which the respondent No.1 wrote a letter to respondent No. 2 stating that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal and accordingly the appointment was cancelled by the Zilla Panchayath.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was relieved from her duties on 29.02.2016 in view of the respondents refusing her continuity of service. Therefore, left with no other alternative, the petitioner approached the Labour Court by filing an IDA No.7/2016 under Section 10 (4-A) read with Section 2 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , to set aside the award of refusal of work passed by the respondents and for reinstatement to the original post, along with back wages and other benefits. The labour court considered the case of the petitioner and has erroneously rejected the claim of the petitioner due to which the petitioner is before this Court.
7. It is the further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is illegal, arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside. He further contends that the petitioner, being appointed on a contract basis, ought to have been continued in the services. When her appointment was pending for approval, the same ought to have been approved, instead of that, she has been relieved from her work.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the Labour Court has failed to take into consideration the provisions of Section 2 (s) of the
