Vinayaka Talkies vs Dy. Labour Commissioner and Authority, Hassan Region, Asst. Labour Commissioner and Authority, Appointed under payment of Gratuity Act, Chikkamagalur Division and Puttaswamy

H. Billappa, J.—In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 16.4.2012, passed by the first respondent in Case No. DLOH/PGA/SR-82/2009-10 vide Annexure-J. By the impugned order at Annexure-J, the first respondent has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition.

Briefly stated the facts are:

The third respondent was working as a Gate Keeper in the talkies belonging to the petitioner from 1976 to 1991. In the year 1991, the third respondent resigned the job. Thereafter, a dispute was raised in Ref. No. MWC 23/1992 before the Labour Commissioner, Chikkamagalur. The petitioner and the third respondent settled the matter and all dues were paid. Suppressing the said fact, the third respondent filed claim petition before the second respondent. The second respondent by order dated 30.8.2006 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 45,430/-. The petitioner preferred Miscellaneous Petition. It came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent. An endorsement dated 26.5.2008 was issued stating that the appeal is not maintainable. It was challenged before this court in W.P. No. 9986/08. This court by its order dated 10.7.2009 has directed to the first respondent to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed dismissing the appeal. Therefore, this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the impugned order is devoid of reasons and not a speaking order. Further he submitted that the petitioner has produced documents to show that the matter was settled between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 and the first respondent has not considered the said documents and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the matter was settled between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 and a memo was filed in MWC 23/1992 and the proceedings came to be closed. The first respondent without considering the documents has passed the impugned order and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.

The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the impugned order is devoid of reasons.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. This court by its order dated 10.7.2009 passed in W.P. 9986/2008 has directed the first respondent to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner contends that he has produced documents to show that the matter was settled between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3. Annexure ''B'' is the receipt for having paid the amount. Annexure ''C'' is the memo filed in MWC No. 23/1992 stating that the matter has been settled out of court The impugned order does not disclose that the documents produced by the petitioner have been considered. Further, the impugned order is devoid of reasons and not a speaking order. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order at Annexure ''J'', dated 16.4.2012, passed by the first respondent is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the first respondent with a direction to reconsider the same, keeping in view the observations made in the course of this order.