The Managing Director, Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd. and Others vs Babajan and Others

H. Billappa, J.—1. These three writ petitions are directed against the award dated 22.1.2009 passed by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli, in Ref. No. 121/1996.

By the impugned award, the Labour Court, Hubli has allowed the reference and set aside the order of termination dated 22.9.1986. The Management is directed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1 lakh in lieu of reinstatement, backwages and continuity of service within four months, failing which, to pay interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of default till the date of realization. Some other directions also have been given.

Aggrieved by that, the Management has filed W.P. No. 64176/2009, the workman has filed W.P. No. 12880/2009 and the State has filed W.P. No. 64630/2010.

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to with reference to their rank in Ref. No. 121/96 before the Labour Court.

Briefly stated the facts are:

"The claimant Babajan was appointed as a cleaner-cum-driver by the 1st respondent Management on 13.12.1982 on daily wage basis. The 1st respondent-Management terminated the service of the claimant with effect from 25.9.1986. Reconciliation ended in failure in 1994-1995. Thereafter, the Government referred the dispute to the Additional Labour Court, Hubli, in the year 1996. The dispute was registered in Ref. No. 121/96. The Labour Court by its award dated 17.8.2001 set aside the order of termination dated 22.09.1986 with a direction to reinstate the claimant with continuity of service but without backwages. It was challenged by the Management in W.P. No. 5947/2002. During the pendency of the writ petition, the claimant was reinstated into service on 16.3.2002. Subsequently, the services of the claimant have been regularized by order dated 4/6.09.2004. The claimant is continuing in service since then."

In the meanwhile, W.P. No. 5947/2002 came to be allowed by order dated 23.6.2005 and the matter was remitted to the Labour Court for reconsideration. Thereafter, by award dated 24.8.2006 the reference was rejected. It was challenged by the claimant in W.P. No. 4445/2007. The writ petition came to be allowed on 19.4.2007 and the matter was remitted to the Labour Court. Thereafter, the Labour Court has passed the award dated 22.1.2009 allowing the reference. The termination order is set aside and the Management is directed to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1 lakh in lieu of reinstatement, backwages and continuity of service within four months. Aggrieved by that, the Management has filed W.P. No. 64176/2009, the claimant has filed W.P. No. 12880/2009 and the State has filed W.P. No. 64630/2010.

The learned counsel for the Management i.e. the petitioner in W.P. No. 64176/2009 contended that the impugned award cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the claimant was a daily wager and his services have been terminated in accordance with law. The claim made by the claimant after the lapse of ten years was a stale claim. Therefore, the Labour Court was not justified in setting aside the termination order and directing the Management to pay the compensation of Rs. 1 lakh.

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State i.e., petitioner in W.P. No. 64630/2010 also submitted that the Labour Court was not justified in setting aside the termination order and directing the Management to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lakh in lieu of reinstatement, backwages and other things. The claimant was only a daily wager and his services have been properly terminated and therefore, the Labour Court was not justified in directing to pay compensation in lieu of reinstatement and other things.

The learned counsel for the claimant i.e., the petitioner in W.P. No. 12880/2009 submitted that pursuant to the order dated 17.18.2001 passed by the Labour Court when W.P. No. 5947/2002 was pending the claimant was reinstated into service on 16.3.2002. Thereafter, the services of the claimant have been regularized by order dated 4/6.09.2004 passed by the Chief Engineer, Water and Land Management Institute, Bengaluru. Since then, the claimant is continuing in service. From 16.3.2002 till now the claimant is continuing in service. In W.P. No. 12880/2009 there is a direction not to terminate the services of the claimant until further orders. The petitioner is continuing in service till now. Keeping in view that the claimant is working from 16.3.2002 and his services have been regularized on 4/6.09.2004 and he is continuing in service, his services may be continued. Further he submitted that the direction to pay compensation in lieu of reinstatement may be set aside.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The point that arises for my consideration is:

"Whether the impugned award needs to be modified?"

It is relevant to note, the claimant was appointed as a cleaner-cum-driver by the first respondent on daily wage basis on 13/12/1982. It is stated, the first respondent terminated the services of the claimant with effect from 25.09.1986. The reconciliation efforts have failed. Thereafter, the dispute has been referred to the Additional Labour Court, Hubballi in reference No. 121/1996. The Labour Court by its award dated 17/8/2001 has allowed the reference with a direction to reinstate the claimant into the service. The management has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court in W.P. No. 5947/2002. When the writ petition was pending, the claimant has been reinstated into service on 16/3/2002. Subsequently, the services of the claimant have been regularised on 4/6/09/2004. Since then, the claimant is continuing in service.

In the meanwhile, the writ petition filed by the Management in W.P. No. 5947/2002 has been allowed by order dated 23/6/2005 and the matter has been remitted to the Labour Court for reconsideration. Thereafter, the Labour Court has dismissed the reference by award dated 24/8/2006. The claimant has challenged the award in W.P. No. 4445/2007. This writ petition has been allowed and the matter has been remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the Labour Court by its award dated 22/1/2009 has allowed the reference and set aside the termination order dated 22/9/1986. The Management has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement, back wages, continuity of service Etc., Other directions also have been given. The claimant, the management and the State have challenged the award passed by the Labour Court dated 22/1/2009.

It was contended by the learned counsel for the Management that the claimant was a daily wager and his termination was proper and the claim made by the claimant was a stale claim. The learned Government Advocate also submitted that the claimant was only a daily wager and therefore, the Labour Court was not justified in directing to pay compensation in lieu of the reinstatement, back wages etc., However, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that when W.P. No. 5947/2002 was pending before this Court, the claimant was reinstated into service on 16/3/2002. Thereafter, the services of the claimant have been regularized by order dated 4/6/09/2004. Since then, the claimant is continuing in service without any interruption. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that in W.P. No. 12280/2009 filed by the claimant there was a direction to continue the claimant in service until further orders. The learned Counsel for the Management or the State does not dispute that the petitioner was reinstated into service on 16/3/2002 and his services have been regularized by order dated 4/6.09.2004 and that the claimant is continuing in service since 16/3/2002. No doubt, the learned counsel for the Management and also the learned Government Advocate submitted that the claimant was only a daily wager and not entitled for reinstatement. But, the facts and circumstances of this case indicate that the claimant was reinstated into service on 16/3/2002 and his services have been regularised on 4/06.09.2004. Since then, the claimant is continuing in service without any interruption. Further, the Labour Court has held that the termination of the claimant was not proper and has set aside the termination order.

In the facts and circumstances of this case which are special, in my considered view, it is appropriate to direct the Management to continue the petitioner in service instead of paying compensation as directed by the Labour Court. Therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court needs to be modified.

Accordingly, the award passed by the Labour Court is modified as follows:--

The award of the Labour Court insofar as it relates to setting aside the order of termination is concerned, it is hereby confirmed. The direction of the Labour Court to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement, backwages and continuity of service is hereby set aside. The Management is directed to continue the services of the claimant. The claimant shall be entitled to service benefits from the date of regularization vide Order dated 4/6.09.2004. The writ petitions filed by the Management, claimant and the State are disposed of in the above terms.