Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Mysuru Rural Division, Bannimantapa, Mysuru, By Its Divisional Controller, Represented By Its Chief Law Officer vs T.P. Harshanarayana

Jyoti Mulimani, J

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.V.S.Naik., learned counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

The brief facts are these:

The respondent was a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation and he was dismissed from service on the charge of proved misconduct. The respondent challenged the order of dismissal after a lapse of nine years in I.I.D.No.48/1988. On 21.01.1994, the respondent was taken on duty during the pendency of the dispute. On 20.10.1994, the Labour Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service, consequential benefits and full backwages. The Corporation questioned the award of the Labour Court in W.P.No.806/1996, an interim order was passed staying backwages. The Writ Petition was allowed on 08.09.1997 and award of the Labour Court was confirmed to the extent of reinstatement, continuity of service and consequential benefits and backwages was reduced to 60%. On 17.05.1999, the Corporation implemented the award and paid a sum of Rs.2,96,420/- (Rupees Two Lakh Ninety Six Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty only) to the respondent towards difference in wages.

As things stood thus, the respondent filed an application under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming a sum of Rs.1,25,515/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Fifteen only) in Application No.32/2013 before the Labour Court, Bengaluru. The Labour Court vide order dated:19.06.2016 allowed the application and directed the Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,515/-(Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Fifteen only) with interest at 12% per annum. It is this order that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers and the records with utmost care.

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation in presenting her arguments vehemently contended that the award of the Labour Court was implemented back in the year 1999, however, the respondent filed an application under Section 33 C (2) of the I.D Act in the year 2013. There is an inordinate delay of almost fourteen years in filing the application. She argued by saying that in the counter statement the Corporation has taken a specific contention about delay and laches, but the Labour Court has not considered the same. It is also vehemently contended on behalf of the Corporation that the Labour Court has not computed the wages and straight away ordered to pay the sum as claimed by the respondent.

By way of reply to this contention, learned counsel Sri.V.S.Naik., contends and drew the attention of the Court to Provisions of 33 C (2) of the I.D Act to contend that there is no limitation to file an application under Section 33 C (2). He argued by saying that in the claim application, the applicant has furnished the details of the wages for which the applicant is entitled and the Corporation has raised certain objections. Learned counsel further submits that the Labour Court extenso referred to the material on record and justified in passing the order. Accordingly, he submits that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. As already noted above, the award of the Labour Court was modified by this Court in W.P.No.806/1996. According to the Corporation, it implemented the award of the Labour Court in the year 1999 i.e., on 17.05.1999 and paid a sum of Rs.2,96,420/- (Rupees Two Lakh Ninety Six Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty only) towards difference in wages. It is not in dispute that the applicant after a lapse of fourteen years, moved an application under Section 33 C (2) of the I.D Act before the Labour Court, Mysore seeking difference in wages.

I have perused the application and also the counter statement filed on behalf of the Corporation. In the counter statement, the Corporation has specifically contended that there is an inordinate delay of fourteen years in filing the application and accordingly sought for dismissal of the application on the grounds of delay and laches. Despite a specific contention regarding delay and laches, the Labour Court has not considered the issue regarding delay and laches. In my view, the Labour Court ought to have framed an issue or point for consideration regarding delay and laches.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no discussion about how the applicant is entitled for the amount which he has claimed. As already noted above, the Corporation denied its liability to pay the amount. The Labour Court has not even computed the wages and straight away ordered to pay the sum as sought by the respondent. This is also erroneous. Hence, the matter requires a remand.

For the reasons stated above, the order of the Labour Court is liable to be set-aside and the matter requires a remand.

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated:19.06.2016 passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru in Application No.32/2013 vide Annexure-G is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Labour Court, Mysuru for fresh consideration. It is needless to observe that all the contentions are kept open.

The Labour Court is directed to frame an issue or point for consideration regarding delay and laches and proceed further in the matter. Since the parties are represented by their respective counsel, they are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Mysuru on 20.12.2023 without awaiting further notice.

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed and remanded.