Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.
The Management of Indian Institute of Management – Petitioner
Vs.
D. Manikya – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10082/2012 (L-RES)
Decided On : 22-09-2015
Industrial Dispute - Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 29, Section 33(c)(2)
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was dismissed from service for misconduct, and a Labour Court awarded reinstatement with continuity of service and benefits. The petitioner appealed, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal. The respondent sought prosecution of the petitioner for non-implementation of the award, leading to a writ petition to quash the order of prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the order of prosecution but reserved liberty for the respondent to seek remedy before the Labour Court under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Issues: Violation of award, non-implementation of judgment, and prosecution for non-compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was a need for computation of the money due or benefits payable by the petitioner to the respondent, which could be undertaken in a proceeding before the Labour Court under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the order of prosecution was quashed, and the respondent was reserved liberty to approach the Labour Court under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act.
A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.
1. The respondent, joined service of the petitioner, as a Plumber, during the year 1974 and was promoted and designated as Works Assistant, during 1987. Alleging commission of misconduct, a charge sheet dated 10.09.1991 was served on the respondent, to which, the explanation was submitted on 18.09.1991. After conducting disciplinary enquiry, the respondent was dismissed from service of the petitioner on 20.08.1993, for the proved misconduct in subordination. At the behest of the respondent, in I.D. No. 98/1993, Labour Court passed a award dated 29.09.2005, setting aside the said order of dismissal and directing reinstatement in the original post with continuity of service and consequential benefits. Both the petitioner and the respondent having assailed the said award, by a common order dated 16.11.2009 passed in W.P. Nos. 13097/2006 and 10409/2008, was upheld. Both parties, feeling aggrieved, filed W.A. Nos. 379/2010 and 2457/2010. Writ appeal filed by the respondent - workman was dismissed and writ appeal filed by the petitioner - Management was allowed in part. It was held that the workman is not entitled to any backwages and was imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments cumulatively.
2. Alleging violation and non-implementation of the award, as was modified in the common judgment dated 23.11.2010 passed in W.A. Nos. 379/2010 and 2457/2010, the respondent having approached the Labour Department, sanction for prosecution of the petitioner having been passed on 26.09.2011 (Annexure-E), in exercise of the power under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, this writ petition was filed on 29.03.2012, to quash the order, as at Annexure-E passed by the Labour Commissioner, Bengaluru and for grant of consequential relief.
3. While ordering notice to the respondent, on 16.04.2012, the impugned order was stayed.
4. The respondent, in justification of the order, as at Annexure-E and seeking dismissal of the writ petition filed statement of objections on 07.11.2012.
5. To the memo dated 22.03.2013, filed on behalf of the petitioner, respondent filed statement of objections on 01.07.2013. A memo and copies of documents were filed by the respondent on 23.10.2013, to which, statement of objections was filed by the petitioner on 27.11.2013. On behalf of the petitioner, a memo enclosing copy of report of the 6th Central Pay Commission was filed on 04.12.2013, to which, the respondent filed statement of objections on 20.12.2013. The respondent filed a memo dated 10.01.2014, enclosing a copy of Salary Report for the period 2009-10 of G. Narayanaswamy, an employee, who joined service as a Plumber, after 7 years of the respondent joining service of the petitioner. To the said memo, petitioner filed statement of objections on 12.02.2014. On behalf of the petitioner, a memo was filed on 28.02.2014, enclosing five documents. Another memo dated 17.03.2014, was filed on behalf of the petitioner, producing extract of Office Memorandum dated 30.08.2008 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India. Yet another memo was filed on 01.04.2014 on behalf of the petitioner, producing a notice issued by the Government of Karnataka, Labour Department and the claim petition filed by the respondent before the Conciliation Officer. On behalf of the respondent, a memo dated 11.04.2014 was filed reporting the withdrawal of I.D. No. 80/2014, on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru. A memo dated 23.04.2015, was filed on behalf of the respondent, enclosing a comparative statement of the service particulars of the petitioner and that of Mr. G. Narayanaswamy, another employee working in the establishment of the petitioner.
6. On behalf of the respondent, additional documents were produced on 08.07.2015. Written submissions were filed by the learned advocates appearing on both sides.
7. I.A. No. 1/2013 having been filed by the petitioner seeking clarification of the directions issued on 23.11.2010, in W.A.
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
