M/S OSWAL BEVERAGES Vs. R.VINUTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Oswal Beverages, the petitioner, has challenged the legality of the order dated 6.6.2017, passed by the First Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, whereby the learned Labour Court has dismissed the interim application filed by the petitioner under Section 11(1) and (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Sections 75 and 151 of the CPC for appointing a Commission through a Registered Valuer (Government) in order to assess, and evaluate the value and cost of the properties owned by the respondent.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that by order dated 1.5.2007, the respondent was appointed as the General Manager with M/s. Oswal Beverages. In the capacity as the General Manger, the respondent happened to be the whole sole incharge of the establishment belonging to the petitioner. However, allegedly the respondent having won the confidence of the petitioner, started misappropriating the money that belonged to the petitioner; allegedly, she amassed a huge wealth. When the respondent's misconduct were discovered, the petitioner terminated her services by order dated 25.5.2011. Since the respondent was aggrieved by the dismissal order, she raised a labour dispute, and filed her claim statement. The petitioner, as the second party before the learned Labour Court, filed its objections. According to the petitioner, the respondent does not fall within the definition of the word "workman". Most importantly, the respondent owns several sites, and constructed large houses by misappropriating the funds from the petitioner Company. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Labour Court had framed four issues. Issue No.2, which is germane to the present dispute before this Court is as under:

(3.) After cross-examining the respondent in detail, even after the respondent had admitted that she is the owner of large properties mentioned by the petitioner, the petitioner filed an application for appointment of a Government Valuer in order to value the properties owned by the respondent. However, by order dated 6.6.2017, the petitioner's application has been dismissed by the learned Labour Court. Hence, this petition before this Court.