Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 51115 OF 2014 (L-TER) BETWEEN: SRI. P.P.MOHANAN S/O DEVAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.85, 5TH CROSS, 27TH MAIN, JBM NAGAR, BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560 078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MATHEW.P.M., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. KIRAN POWER RECTIFICATION SERVICES PVT LTD., NO. 564/B, N.S.PALAYA, BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE,
Digitally signed by BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
PREMCHANDRA BANGALORE-560 076. MR …RESPONDENT Location: High (SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)Court of Karnataka THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -2-
ORDER
Sri.Mathew.P.M., learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person.
2. Notice to the respondent was issued on 20.03.2015.
A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. The respondent has neither made any efforts to engage the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.
3. The short facts are these:
The petitioner filed a claim statement contending that he was appointed as Winder in the year 1992 in the M/s.Kiran Power Rectification Services Private Limited. He worked continuously, sincerely and honestly and to the entire satisfaction of the Management. It is also contended that he was provided with ESI and PF benefits, however, the Management started ill-treating him and on one fine day he was asked to get out of the premises. The petitioner specifically contended that there is a refusal of employment from 07.05.2009. Hence, he was constrained to raise a dispute before the III Addl. Labor Court, Bengaluru in Reference -3- No.04/2010. The Management filed its counter statement and denied the allegations. The Labor Court vide award dated:04.01.2013 dismissed the claim petition. It is this award that is called into question in this writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of a writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and perused the petition papers with utmost care.
5. Counsel Sri.Mathew.P.M., in presenting his
arguments strenuously urged that the Labor Court has not appreciated the issue from the right perspective. Counsel therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed.
6. The issue revolves around a narrow compass. The
petitioner contends that he was appointed as a Winder in the respondent Company. A perusal of the award reveals that the petitioner has not furnished any documents to show that there was a refusal of the employment by the Management. Except for ESI and Insurance Policies, there is nothing on record to show that there was a refusal of the employment. Furthermore, the Management called upon him to come and join the duty,
-4-
however, he refused to report to duty saying that he is not interested in joining the duty. The Labor Court took note of the material evidence on record and justified in concluding that the petitioner is not willing to join the duty and also failed to substantiate his case. In my view, the dismissal of the claim petition is just and proper. I find no grounds to interfere with the award of the Labor Court. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be rejected.
7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected. Sd/- JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34