SREENIVASA Vs. DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had been working in the establishment of the respondent-college as a driver. After his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, he filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in I.D. No. 16/11 before the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, for payment of earned leave encashment for a period of 240 days with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of superannuation till the date of payment. The Labour Court by its order dated 25-2-2013 has held that the petitioner is entitled for E.L. encashment for 90 days in a sum of Rs. 29,370/- with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of his application till the date of realisation. The respondent challenged the said order of the Labour Court by filing a writ petition in W.P. No. 38043 of 2013. This Court by order dated 2-1-2014 dismissed the writ petition. The appeal filed by the respondent in W.A. No. 323 of 2014 (L-RES) (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College, Bangalore v Sreenivasa) was dismissed by the Division Bench on 18-2-2014.

(2.) In the meantime, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the validity of the order at Annexure-C, dated 25-2-2013 and also the validity of Rule 12(12) of the Service Rules framed by the respondent and for a mandamus directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 90,369/- towards E.L. encashment of 240 days.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that having regard to the order of the Labour Court in an identical case in Application No. 23 of 2012 against the respondent, wherein E.L. encashment was granted for 240 days, the petitioner is also entitled for E.L. encashment for the similar period. It is argued that Rule 12(12) of the Service Rules framed by the respondent is arbitrary and is opposed to public policy. Relying on the order of the Labour Court in Application No. 23 of 2012, dated 21-9-2013, he submits that the petitioner is also entitled for payment of E.L. encashment for 240 days.