The Management of Basaveshwar Vidyavardhaka Sangha and Others vs Somashekhar Sangappa Jidagi and Others

B.S. Patil, J.—1. All these four writ petitions have been filed by the Management of Basaveshwar Vidyavardhaka Sangha, Bagalkot, against the employee - Somashekhar Sangappa Jidagi and the authorities of the Department of Education.

The first of the Writ Petitions is directed against the award passed by the Labour Court, Vijayapura on 02nd April 2014, thereby allowing the claim made by respondent-workman challenging his dismissal from service. The Labour Court having set aside the order of dismissal has directed payment of arrears of wages from the date of dismissal till the date of retirement of the workman with all retiral benefits.

As this order was not implemented, the respondent-workman has instituted three separate proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ''Act''), seeking arrears of increments for the period from January 2000 to March 2001 (for fifteen months) at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month; arrears of wages for 24 days in the month of May 2001 and towards subsistence allowance for six days in the month of May 2001, and for the entire months of June and July 2001; for a direction to submit the pension papers of the applicant-workman to the Accountant General in Karnataka, for the purpose of fixing his pension and also to pay the monetary benefits on account of superannuation.

As separate applications under Section 33C(2) of the Act have been filed by the workman, three separate orders have been passed on different dates. Petitioner-Management has challenged all these orders by filing joint writ petitions.

Main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Award passed by the Labour Court setting aside the order of dismissal and directing payment of wages until he retired from service suffers from patent illegality, inasmuch as fair opportunity to adduce evidence was not afforded. He has further contended that though the employee was given fair and reasonable opportunity before the enquiry officer to have his say, he did not participate in the enquiry to contest the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, therefore, the Labour Court was not justified in passing the impugned Award.

I have carefully gone through the Award passed by the Labour Court. It is clear from the findings recorded by the Labour Court that enquiry officer had issued notice of enquiry to the employee fixing the date of his appearance to participate in the enquiry. However, contending that due to unavoidable circumstances, he was not able to appear before the enquiry officer on the date fixed, the employee had written a letter seeking time. The enquiry officer did not grant time, but proceeded to dispose of the matter ex parte''. It is in this background, Labour Court has found that disciplinary enquiry conducted was not fair and proper. Though, the Labour Court provided an opportunity to both parties to lead evidence on merits, while the workman examined himself and produced nine documents as Exs. P-1 to 9, the Management did not come forward to adduce any evidence. Hence, the Labour court, after considering the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that on the basis of vague charges, the claimant had been dismissed from service, that too just before two months of his retirement. As the disciplinary enquiry was not fair and proper, heavy burden was cast on the Management to justify the order of dismissal, but the Management did not come forward to substantiate or justify the order of dismissal, hence the Labour Court found that it had to be held that dismissal order was not justified and was liable to be set aside.

Having regard to the findings recorded by the Labour Court and keeping in mind the facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that respondent-workman was dismissed from service just before two months from the date of his retirement, and that the Management had not even taken care to appear before the Labour Court to lead any evidence, justifying the allegations made against the employee by producing proof in support of such allegations, I am of the view that no case has been made out for interference with the Award passed by the Labour Court. Payment of back-wages is only for a period of nearly two months and therefore, it does not require any interference.

Insofar as other orders passed by the Labour Court in exercise of its power under Section 33C(2) of the Act, as regards Annexure ''B''-the first of the orders passed on 02nd April 2014 in Application No. 1 of 2014, the Labour Court has directed the Management to pay Rs. 3,000/- to the applicant towards arrears of increment for the period from January 2000 to March 2001 i.e., for three months from the date of the order passed on 02nd April 2014, failing which respondent-Management has been directed to pay the amount with interest at 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation.

Here again, the Labour Court has held that oral and documentary evidence produced by the applicant had remained unchallenged, therefore, the Labour Court proceeded to assume that the increments had not been paid for fifteen months at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month and hence, the same was required to be awarded. No interference, insofar as merits of the matter is concerned, is necessary. However, as regards payment of interest, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the very award passed directing his reinstatement was the subject matter of challenge before this Court including the impugned order directing payment of increments for fifteen months, interest awarded at 9% per annum from the date of application would result in financial burden on the petitioner-Management. Therefore, interest payable is reduced and fixed at 6% (six percent) per annum payable with effect from the date of disposal of Application No. 1 of 2014 on 02nd April 2014 on the amount of Rs. 3,000/-.

Insofar as Application No. 2 of 2014 is concerned, which has been disposed of by the Labour Court on 02nd April 2014, subject matter of this proceeding filed under Section 33C(2) of the Act was payment of arrears of salary for twenty-four days in the month of May 2001 and also towards subsistence allowance for six days in the month of May 2001 and for the months of June and July 2001. Labour Court has computed the amount at Rs. 26,858/- and has ordered payment of the same with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the application till the date of realisation towards the arrears of salary.

Here again, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances and the findings recorded by the Labour Court based on the evidence of P.W. - 1, which remained unchallenged by the respondent-Management and also the fact that employee had been subsequently dismissed from service and he has got the benefit of reinstatement again on account of default on the part of the Management in not adducing evidence before the Labour Court, I am of the view that, ends of justice would be met if arrears of Rs. 26,858/- is ordered to be paid with interest at 6% (six percent) per annum from the date of the order passed in Application No. 2 of 2014 i.e., from 02nd April 2014.

The last of the orders in the present batch Writ Petitions is the order passed in Application No. 3 of 2014 on 02nd April 2014 with regard to payment of pensionary benefits. The Labour Court has not quantified either the pension payable or other retiral benefits that are required to be paid. Labour Court has only disposed of the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Act with the following directions:

"The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby directed to submit pension papers of the applicant to the Accountant General, Karnataka, at Bangalore for the purpose of fixing the pension. Further, they are directed to pay monetary benefits on account of superannuation to the applicant within three months from today."

Computation of actual pension payable to the respondent-workman and other retiral benefits has to be done by the competent authorities. The Labour Court has not quantified the amount. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said order because, as a consequence of setting aside the order dismissing the employee, he shall be deemed to be in service and entitled for the retiral benefits including pension.

The pensionary benefits payable to the employee shall be disbursed expeditiously, at any rate within a period of three months from the date petitioner-Management forwards the required papers to the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Belagavi, who will in turn forward the same to the Office of the Accountant General in Karnataka at Bengaluru, within a month.

The Management is directed to forward the papers within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed.