Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 46260 (KAR)

SRI. R. CHELUVARAJ v. M/S HANDIMAN SERVICES LTD

WP/12254/2013 · 2025-02-27

Anant Ramanath Hegde

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8648 WP No. 12254 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 12254 OF 2013 (L-RES) BETWEEN: SRI R. CHELUVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O LATE S RAMAIAH, C/O SMT. GOWRAMMA, NO. 38, 4TH CROSS, OPP: D M PUBLIC SCHOOL, RAJESHWARINAGAR, LAGGERE, BANGALORE-560058. …PETITIONER (BY SRI D PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S HANDIMAN SERVICES LTD., NO.3, 15TH CROSS, KOLANDAPPA GARDEN, GAJENDRANAGAR, ANEPALYA AUDUGODI POST, BANGALORE-560030. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, 2NDADDL. LABOUR COUT AT BANGALORE, IN REF.NO.15/09. QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DT.30.11.11 PASSED IN REF.NO.15/09 BY THE 2ND ADDL. LABOUR COUT AT BANGALORE, AT ANNX-D AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8648 WP No. 12254 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is arising from the award dated 30.11.2011 in Ref.No.15/2009 on the file of II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru. The petitioner was admittedly a workman of respondent, raised an industrial dispute on the premise that the employment was denied to him without holding any disciplinary enquiry. The said reference is rejected in terms of aforementioned award. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court assailing the award. 2. Respondent though served is not represented. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inviting the attention of this Court to the pleadings before the Labour Court as well as the documentary evidence and oral evidence placed before the Labour Court would contend that the petitioner was working as a driver under the respondent. The fact that he was working as driver is admitted. The petitioner has worked from 17.09.2004 till 02.04.2008 and thereafter, he - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8648 WP No. 12254 of 2013 was denied employment without assigning any reasons. He would contend that the respondent disputed the petitioner's claim and he filed statement of objections only after closure of evidence by the petitioner and in the statement of objections, he has taken a defence that the petitioner refused to work after deputation. The contention that order of deputation can be questioned only under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) and it cannot be raised as a dispute under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act is an afterthought and same is not established, is the submission. 5. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents evidencing the alleged deputation are not established as the said documents do not bear the petitioner's signature. 6. Defence statement was filed by the respondent after the closure of evidence by the petitioner and the documents produced to establish the contention that the petitioner was deputed to Hyderabad do not bear the signature of the petitioner. On the other hand, the very defence that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8648 WP No. 12254 of 2013 petitioner was deputed to Hyderabad would establish the fact that the petitioner was an employee of the respondent, is the contention on behalf of the petitioner. 7. It is also urged that on 01.04.2008, the petitioner had taken the vehicle of the respondent to service station and the same is established from Ex.W11 which is the job card issued by Mandovi Motors Private Limited. Thus, he would contend that the petitioner did work on 01.04.2008 for the respondent and Ex.W12 which is the invoice and the cash receipt dated 02.04.2008, also reveal that the petitioner did work on 02.04.2008 as well. Thus, he would contend the fact that petitioner worked for the respondent till 02.04.2008 is very much established. Since the deputation as contended by respondent is not established, the Labour Court erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner and the petitioner has not established his claim. 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at Bar and perused the records. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8648 WP No. 12254 of 2013 9. From the contentions raised before the Labour Court and the materials placed on record, it is evident that the petitioner was employee of the respondent. 10. The question as to whether the petitioner was allowed to work after 02.04.2008 or whether the petitioner on his own, refused to work objecting deputation as contended by the respondent. 11. The petitioner has produced the records to show that on 31.03.2008, he has worked for the respondent. The job card which is produced by the petitioner is the proof the fact that the petitioner has taken the vehicle to the Mandovi Motors on 01.04.2008 and on 02.04.2008, the payment is made and the petitioner has produced the receipt. The job card and the receipt issued are produced from petitioner's custody. This would indicate the fact that the petitioner was at Mandovi Motors on 01.04.2008 and as well as on 02.04.2008. These documents are not seriously disputed. Apart from that the respondent is not able to establish that the order of deputation is served on the petitioner and the petitioner refused to go to Hyderabad. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8648 WP No. 12254 of 2013 12. Assuming that the petitioner has denied the order of deputation, there would have been notices calling upon the petitioner to join the service. In case of unauthorized absence, nothing prevented the respondent from issuing notice to the petitioner calling upon him to join the service or to hold disciplinary enquiry on account of misconduct alleging unauthorized absence. No such proceeding is also initiated against the petitioner. 13. These circumstances would clearly suggest that the petitioner was working with the respondent till 02.04.2008. Unfortunately, the Labour Court has not considered the documents produced by the petitioner in this regard in a proper perspective. The Labour Court has not assigned valid and acceptable reasons for not accepting Exs.W11 and W12 produced by the petitioner. Though the Labour Court has held that the burden is on the petitioner to establish his case, the materials placed on record by the petitioner clearly establish that he work for respondent and the burden is on the respondent to establish that the petitioner refused the work. The defence statement filed by the respondent after the closure of petitioner's evidence appears to be an afterthought defence. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8648 WP No. 12254 of 2013 14. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has established that the employment was denied to him without there being any cause. 15. The petitioner had prayed for re-instatement and payment of back wages. Before this Court the petitioner has produced the medical records to show that he is not in a position to work. The documents indicate that he is suffering from cancer. Thus, the prayer for re-instatement is not sustainable. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner was aged 37 years in the year 2007, and now he is aged 53 years. 16. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the in lieu of prayer for reinstatement, it would be appropriate to award compensation for illegal termination. 17. It is stated that the petitioner is having a salary of Rs.5,950/- per month. The records would reveal that petitioner was diagnosed for cancer in the year 2018. 18. Under these circumstances, this Court has to hold that the petitioner can claim benefits treating his year of retirement as 2021. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8648 WP No. 12254 of 2013 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar vs Director of Education And Ors. and prays for suitable compensation. 20. Considering the fact that the petitioner was denied employment without any basis and without any enquiry, this Court is of the view that petitioner is entitled to backwages up to the year 2021. With effect from 01.01.2022, the petitioner should be treated as voluntarily opted for retirement on account of illness. Hence, the following:- ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned award dated 30.11.2011 in Ref. No.15/2009 on the file of II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru is set-aside. iii) The petitioner should be treated as reinstated with effect from 03.04.2008 till 31.12.2021. iv) The petitioner is also entitled to full backwages for the said period. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8648 WP No. 12254 of 2013 v) The petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits. vi) All benefits shall be paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the amount payable shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of this order till payment. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35