DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. RANGU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (NEKRTC), petitioner, has challenged the legality of the order dated 21.10.2015 passed by the Labour Court, Vijayapur, whereby the learned Labour Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent, Mr. Rangu under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ('the Act' for short).

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that, Sri. Rangu, respondent before this Court, had entered into the service of the petitioner-corporation as a driver in the year 1991. Subsequently, he was dismissed from service on 24.05.2013, Since he was aggrieved by the dismissal order, he raised a labour dispute in the form of KID No. 14/2013. By order dated 08.08.2014, the Labour Court has set aside the dismissal order, and directed the petitioner-corporation to reinstate the respondent in service with continuity of service, and all other consequential benefits only for the purpose of working out the terminal benefits. However, despite publication of the award, the petitioner-corporation did not honour the award. Therefore, the Government had issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner-corporation. Initially, the respondent had filed an application namely, Application No. 6/2015 under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Act for seeking prospective wages for the period from 08.08.2014 to 28.02.2015. The said application was allowed by the learned Labour Court. However, as the petitioner-Corporation did not pay the salary of the respondent for the further period from 01.03.2015 to 31.07.2015, subsequently, the respondent filed a second application namely, Application No. 24/2015 under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Act. The said application has been allowed by the learned Labour Court. Hence, the petition before this court.

(3.) Mr. Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for the petitioner-corporation, has vehemently contended that the Corporation had clearly pleaded before the learned Labour Court that the Corporation had issued a call letter, dated 08.04.2015, which was duly served upon the respondent. But in spite of the call letter directing the respondent to join the services, the respondent failed to do so. This particular aspect has been ignored by the learned Labour Court on the basis of conjunctures and surmises. Therefore, the learned Labour Court is unjustified in concluding that the call letter dated 08.04.2015 was not served on the respondent.