AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath, J.—The case of the respondent is that he was appointed as a driver with the petitioner-Corporation in the year 1981 on probation. Thereafter he was confirmed. It is the case of the petitioner that on 17.04.1984, respondent submitted his voluntary resignation and requested the same be accepted. That terminal benefits of Rs. 2,100/- was given to him. After a lapse of three years, he submitted a representation to the petitioner-Corporation to take him back to duty. He was not taken back to duty. Therefore, he approached the Labour Court u/s 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Corporation did not contest the case. The Labour Court directed the Corporation to reinstate the workman. The same was challenged in W.P. No. 5259/1998 before this Court wherein by the order dated 07.06.1999, the order of the Labour Court was set aside. The matter was remanded for a fresh consideration. Thereafter, the present order has been passed directing the Corporation to take back the respondent to duty. There was no order for any backwages. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. Sri. Sunil S. Desai, learned counsel appearing for petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and there is material to show that the workman has received the terminal benefits and the question of reinstatement does not arise. On the other hand, Sri. Gode Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent defends the impugned order.
On hearing learned counsels, in my considered view, there is no merit in this petition. Primarily, the petitioner has failed to show what legal injury they have sustained by the impugned order reinstating the respondent without any backwages. There is no financial loss caused to the Corporation. I find no legal injuries caused to the petitioner. However, it is contended that based on the judgment reported in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Abdul Azeez, an application u/s 10(4-A) itself is not maintainable. Therefore, the petition requires to be dismissed. I am unable to accept this contention. This is the second round of litigation. Before the Labour Court, they did not contest the matter and no such contention was taken by them. It is only on remand, in the second round that such a contention is taken. It is not proper to appreciate such a contention at such a belated stage. Hence, I do not find any error that calls for interference. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Rule discharged.