M/S. NETTAKALLAPPA AQUATIC CENTRE Vs. SALEEM JAVED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who had employed the respondent as Pool Manager, have impugned the order dtd. 21/9/2022 in Industrial Dispute No.6/2020 on the file of the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Labour Court'], and the Labour Court by the impugned order has allowed the respondent's application [IA No.2] under Sec. 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'I D Act') for payment of last drawn wages as subsistence allowance. The Labour Court has directed the petitioners to pay 50% of the net salary drawn by the respondent as interim relief with further observation that such amount shall be paid from the date of application.

(2.) The brief statement of facts would be that the petitioners have established and operate an Aqua Center, and the respondent is appointed as Pool Manager on 3/12/2018. The respondent is issued with Appointment Letter dtd. 3/12/2018. The respondent is assured a total sum of Rs.47,800.00 as monthly emolument, and this amount includes Basic Pay [Rs.21,510.00], allowances such as HRA, Conveyance allowance and CCA with 12% of the Basic Pay and DA as employer's contribution to the Provident Fund. The petitioners have also stipulated that the respondent would be on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining reserving liberty to extend the probationary period or to terminate services if the respondent's performance is to be found unsatisfactory. The respondent has stopped working from 11/11/2019.

(3.) The respondent contends that he was terminated with effect from 2/11/2019 with the issuance of the termination letter dtd. 11/11/2019, but the petitioners contend that the respondent tendered resignation on 2/11/2019 and his termination from the services is in the light of this letter of resignation. With the respondent commencing proceedings under Sec. 10(4) of the ID Act, the petitioners have filed objections asserting defense as aforesaid and contending, as a threshold objection, that the respondent is not a Workman as defined under Sec. 2(s) of the ID Act and if the respondent is not a workman, the industrial dispute under Sec. 10(4) of the ID Act must be dismissed in limine.