LAWS(KAR)-2013-10-301

MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE CHIEF ENGINEER, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD Vs. BASAVARAJ NINGAPPA HUDLI AND OTHERS

Decided On October 11, 2013
Managing Director, The Chief Engineer, The Executive Engineer And The Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka Urban Water Supply And Drainage Board Appellant
V/S
Basavaraj Ningappa Hudli Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W .P. Nos. 62918/2012 and 64864 -876/2012 are filed by the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board (KUWSDB) and its functionaries, raising the challenge to the common award, dated 20.10.2011 (Annexure -D) passed by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli, in KID No. 20/2005 and other connected petitions, in so far as it directs the petitioners to re -instate the respondent Nos. 2 to 15 pay them back -wages, etc. W.P. Nos. 63507/2012 and 64220 -232/2012 are filed by the Contractor, raising the challenge to the very same award. The facts of the case in brief are that the KUWSDB, an instrumentality of the State Government has undertaken the project of supplying water to Belgaum City from Hidkal dam. For maintaining its three pumping stations, it entered into an agreement with the Contractor, namely, Basavaraj Ningappa Hudli for engaging the qualified personnel. The workmen, employed by the Contractor, raised the industrial dispute ventilating their grievance that they were illegally removed. When the conciliation did not lead the workmen anywhere, they filed the petition invoking Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (the I.D. Act for short). They contended before the Additional Labour Court that when they demanded the payment of wages at the agreed rates, the Contractor started taking the resignations forcibly and orally ordering the workmen not to come for duty. It is their further case that no notice was issued and no retrenchment allowance was paid. They sought their reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service, etc.

(2.) THE Contractor took the stand that the workmen voluntarily abandoned the work. It was contended that only one workman, the petitioner in KID No. 20/2005 is dismissed, as he committed the misconduct of urinating in the water tank. The KUWSDB and its functionaries denied any privity of contract between itself and the workmen. As the KUWSDB has not appointed them, it is not liable to reinstate them or to pay any wages. The KUWSDB also contented that they are not workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and that the KUWSDB is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the said Act.

(3.) IN all the cases, almost identical issues are framed. The only change is in respect of the dates. Based on the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Additional Labour Court answered the contentious issues in favour of the workmen. It passed the impugned award setting aside the termination order in respect of the 14 workmen (respondent Nos. 2 to 15 in W.P. Nos. 62918/2012 and 64864 -876/2012). The Additional Labour Court directed their reinstatement, payment of backwages, continuity of service, etc. The liability to satisfy the impugned award was put jointly on the Contractor, KUWSDB and its functionaries.