CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Vs. S. KRISHNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.A.No.6501/2013 has been filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Mysore (hereinafter referred to as 'the employer' for short), whereas, W.A.No.6509/2013 was filed by employee being aggrieved by the order dtd. 8/10/2013 passed in W.P.No.12389/2009. On account of commonality of issues, both the appeals are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals in nutshell are that the deceased S.Krishnaiah (hereinafter referred to as the employee for short) was employed on a daily wage basis as a cook in boys College Hostel, Hunsur for a period from 1990 to 1996. However, his services were dispensed with in violation of Sec. 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. At the instance of the employee, the dispute was referred for adjudication on 17/3/1998 to the labour court. The employee filed a claim statement and examined himself. The employer despite notice did not appear before the labour court. The labour court by an award dtd. 28/2/2003 directed reinstatement of the employee along with 50% backwages from 2/5/1998. The aforesaid award passed by the labour court was assailed by the employer in a writ petition viz., W.P.No.13747/2007. A bench of this court by an order dtd. 22/1/2008 remitted the matter to the labour court. Thereafter, the employer adduced evidence. The labour court by an award dtd. 5/9/2008 directed the employer to reinstate the services of the employee along with 50% backwages. The said award passed by the labour court was again challenged in a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by an order dtd. 8/10/2013 modified the award and directed the employer to pay a sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh to the employee as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages within a period of two months along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum till payment. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge, the employer has preferred W.A.No.6501/2013, whereas, the employee has filed W.A.No.6509/2013.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that there was no evidence that the employee had worked continuously for a period of 240 days in a calendar year and therefore, the question of violation of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 did not arise for consideration. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that during the pendency of this appeal, the workman has expired on 5/9/2020. It is further submitted that the labour court had passed a well reasoned award on the basis of meticulous appreciation of the evidence on record and the same should not have been interfered with by the learned Single Judge in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the that the amount of compensation awarded by the labour court is inordinately low.