Masina Hospital.Vs. Mrs. Sunanda Hari Kadam,and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
karnataka rent act, 1999 - applicability - pending eviction proceedings under the old act i.e., karnataka rent control act, 1961, the new act i.e., karnataka rent act, 1999 came into force - tenant-respondent made an application that since the rent of the schedule premises is rs.4,000/- the new act is not applicable and proceedings are not maintainable - trial court held that "since the monthly rent of scheduled premises exceeds rs.3500/-, hence the karnataka rent act, 1999 is not applicable and this court has no jurisdiction to try the case and the petition is not maintainable before this court" - saying so, ia 8 was allowed - revision before high court was dismissed - appeal to supreme court - held, it is very clear from section 70 of the 1999 rent act that unless proceedings initiated under the 1961 act has reached the stage of execution of a decree, 1961 act will have no application to other eviction proceeding which are pending, prior to the execution stage, on the date of coming into effect of the 1999 rent act.(para 12) we are also inclined to agree with the view taken by the hon'ble high court for the reasons indicated below:. the 1999 rent act (karnataka act 34 of 2001) was brought into existence to remedy problems of urbanisation and to give protection of this only to certain categories of tenants and in respect of some kinds of tenanted premises. before enacting this law, recommendations of economic administration reforms commission and the national commission on urbanisation were considered. on the recommendations of those two commissions, this new legislation was brought in to balance the interests of both the landlord and the tenant and the new law was to provide for regulation of rent and eviction in the spirit of modern economy and it was designed to replace the 1961 rent act. (paras 20 & 21) in the instant case, the agreed rent is rs.4000/- which comes within the definition of section 6(1)(a) and the said agreement was admittedly entered into between the appellants and respondents prior to the commencement of the 1999 rent act. in a case where there is an admitted agreed rent, the question of fixation of standard rent does not arise. (paras 27 & 28) an explanation to a section should normally be read to "harmonise with and clear up any ambiguity in the main section" and normally not to widen its ambit. (see bihta co-operative development and cane marketing union ltd., and another vs. bank of bihar and others - air 1967 sc 389 at page 393 and m/s. oblum electrical industries pvt. ltd., hyderabad vs. collector of customs, bombay - air 1997 sc 3467 at page 3471).(para 29) in the instant case the agreed rent is the deemed rent since there is no dispute about the quantum of agreed rent before the coming into force of this act. for the reasons aforesaid, this court does not find any error in the reasoning of the high court and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.(paras 30 & 31).1. by these appeals, the appellant-management challenges the common order dated 4th may, 2006 passed by the learned single judge of this court in writ petition nos. 3108 of 2002 and 1132 of 2003.2. the relevant facts are-. one hari ganpat kadam was an employee of the appellant management/hospital. he was appointed as ward boy since 1967 and had put in twenty years of service. the said worker was also a union leader and was actively participating in the union activities. the appellant charge-sheeted the petitioner for charge of assaulting co- workers. he was suspended from service. after replies were filed, an inquiry was conducted and ultimately he was dismissed from service on 10-10-1987. after his dismissal, said worker filed a complaint bearing complaint (ulp) no. 283 of 1987 before the labour court under item 1, schedule iv of the murtu & pulp act. in part i award, a finding was recorded by the labour court that the inquiry was not fair and proper and gave the management an opportunity to prove the charges before the court.3. being aggrieved by the said part i award, a revision was preferred by the appellant/management being revision application (ulp) no. 78 of 1994. said revision application was rejected by the industrial court, by remanding the matter back to labour court for a fresh decision on the preliminary issue. thereafter, a writ petition was filed by the said worker being writ petition no. 1377 of 2000 and by an order dated 6th july, 2000 this court set aside the said order passed by the industrial court of remanding the matter back to the labour court and this court directed the appellant/management to lead evidence and prove charge before the labour court.4. thereafter the management examined various witnesses in support of its case before the labour court. after examining the said witnesses and after hearing the parties, the labour court passed an order and judgment dated 3rd march, 2001, holding that misconduct is not proved against the workman and directed that the said workman should be reinstated with continuity of service and full back-wages. the labour court recorded a finding that the charge of assault is not proved by the management, because no evidence of the doctor has been produced or medical report to show that there was any assault on the said co- workman. the management has relied upon only oral evidence in support of their case and did not rely upon any documentary evidence except the complaint of co-worker. the said oral evidence of witnesses was disbelieved by the labour court, on the ground that though said co- worker is working in the hospital where doctors are available for 24 hours, he did not take any medical treatment there for the injuries, but he went to the private doctor shri gaikwad; and said gaikwad is neither examined nor any documents are produced to show that he has taken any treatment from said dr. gaikwad. it is also observed by the labour court that the evidence of the said co-worker that he has taken medicine from dr. gaikwad for 3-4 days at vikroli, is not believable, when he was residing in the hospital during the said period. it has been further observed by the labour court that the evidence produced by management of other witnesses also does not inspire the confidence of the court. the labour court has also not accepted the evidence of watchman as credible, because he has deposed in his evidence that there was assault in his presence, but he heard horn of the car coming to the main gate and therefore, he went to open the said gate. he further deposed that when he came back, he found nobody on the scene and he thought that everything is sorted out, as both co-workers had left the said place. the labour court has analyzed the evidence in detail, of each of the witnesses and has come to the conclusion that the charge of assault has not been proved.5. being aggrieved by the said order, management filed revision being revision application (ulp) no. 43 of 2001 before the industrial court. the industrial court has come to the conclusion that the misconduct of assault on the co-employee by the said workman has been proved and revision is partly allowed by setting aside the order of reinstatement. further it is held that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate however, since the said worker had expired during pendency of the revision, the industrial court directed the management to pay wages at the rate of 50% and other legal dues and service emoluments to the legal heirs of the deceased worker.6. the order of the industrial court was challenged by both the parties by filing two writ petitions, which have been referred to above. those writ petitions, by a common order dated 4th may, 2006 were disposed of by the learned single judge. the learned single judge held that the labour court having appreciated the entire evidence on record in detail, the revisional court is not justified in re-appreciating the evidence and modifying the order passed by the labour court. the learned single judge, therefore, held that order of the industrial court is liable to be set aside, and order of the labour court was modified, granting reinstatement to the worker. as the worker has meantime expired, the learned single judge while modifying the order of the labour court directed the management to treat the deceased workman in service upto the date of his death or date of superannuation, whichever is earlier and pay his dues accordingly with full back-wages.7. we have heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail. the charge was framed against the delinquent workman on the basis of complaint made by the employees by name jagdish and mukesh. the complaint was dated 17th june, 1987. narration in the complaint against the delinquent was that he caught hold of the collar of the complainant- jagdish and that another person accompanying the delinquent, krishna shinde slapped him. this was the charge. but said jagdish in his evidence deposed exactly contrary to the said narration. he did not depose that the delinquent caught hold of his collar; instead he deposed that krishna shinde caught hold his collar and the delinquent employee slapped him. thus, the complainant-jagdish himself did not support his complaint and thus, charge was held not proved. the learned single judge rightly held that the industrial court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction should not have re-appreciated the evidence, oral and documentary, which was already appreciated by the labour court, without first recording the finding that the labour court has excluded from its consideration any piece of evidence in the appreciation of evidence; it was a clear case of exceeding jurisdiction by the industrial court. in our opinion, the learned single judge was perfectly justified in not accepting the approach adopted by the revisional court in re- appreciating the evidence. it was argued on behalf of the appellant that the learned single judge should not have awarded the back-wages to the worker, from the record we find that there is a clear statement made on oath by the worker that he was not gainfully employed, and after termination of his services he went to his native place and he was helping his brother in cultivation of the land; he was staying in joint family having 4 acres land. we do not find that there is any material on record to show what was the income from the agricultural land and how much income came to the share of the delinquent worker. in our opinion, learned single judge is justified in awarding the back-wages, in any case. in our opinion, now the as the delinquent worker has expired, whatever back-wages are to be paid to him, will have to be paid to his legal representatives i. e. his widow and son, who are respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the appeals. taking over all view of the matter, no interference in the impugned order is called for. in the result, both the appeals are dismissed.8. in view of disposal of both the appeals, personal bond which has been given for withdrawal of the amount, which was deposited, pursuant to the interim order of this court, stands discharged. the balance amount which was invested, pursuant to said interim order, payable to the respondents, be paid to them together with accruals, if any.

Judgment:
1. By these appeals, the appellant-Management challenges the common order dated 4th May, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 3108 of 2002 and 1132 of 2003.

2. The relevant facts are-

. One Hari Ganpat Kadam was an employee of the appellant Management/hospital. He was appointed as Ward Boy since 1967 and had put in twenty years of service. The said worker was also a Union leader and was actively participating in the union activities. The appellant charge-sheeted the petitioner for charge of assaulting co- workers. He was suspended from service. After replies were filed, an inquiry was conducted and ultimately he was dismissed from service on 10-10-1987. After his dismissal, said worker filed a complaint bearing Complaint (ULP) No. 283 of 1987 before the Labour Court under Item 1, Schedule IV of the MURTU & PULP Act. In part I award, a finding was recorded by the Labour Court that the inquiry was not fair and proper and gave the management an opportunity to prove the charges before the Court.

3. Being aggrieved by the said Part I award, a revision was preferred by the Appellant/Management being Revision Application (ULP) No. 78 of 1994. Said Revision Application was rejected by the Industrial Court, by remanding the matter back to Labour Court for a fresh decision on the preliminary issue. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed by the said worker being Writ Petition No. 1377 of 2000 and by an order dated 6th July, 2000 this Court set aside the said order passed by the Industrial Court of remanding the matter back to the Labour Court and this Court directed the appellant/Management to lead evidence and prove charge before the Labour Court.

4. Thereafter the Management examined various witnesses in support of its case before the Labour Court. After examining the said witnesses and after hearing the parties, the Labour Court passed an order and judgment dated 3rd March, 2001, holding that misconduct is not proved against the workman and directed that the said workman should be reinstated with continuity of service and full back-wages. The Labour Court recorded a finding that the charge of assault is not proved by the Management, because no evidence of the doctor has been produced or medical report to show that there was any assault on the said co- workman. The Management has relied upon only oral evidence in support of their case and did not rely upon any documentary evidence except the complaint of co-worker. The said oral evidence of witnesses was disbelieved by the Labour Court, on the ground that though said co- worker is working in the hospital where doctors are available for 24 hours, he did not take any medical treatment there for the injuries, but he went to the private doctor Shri Gaikwad; and said Gaikwad is neither examined nor any documents are produced to show that he has taken any treatment from said Dr. Gaikwad. It is also observed by the Labour Court that the evidence of the said co-worker that he has taken medicine from Dr. Gaikwad for 3-4 days at Vikroli, is not believable, when he was residing in the hospital during the said period. It has been further observed by the Labour Court that the evidence produced by Management of other witnesses also does not inspire the confidence of the Court. The Labour Court has also not accepted the evidence of watchman as credible, because he has deposed in his evidence that there was assault in his presence, but he heard horn of the car coming to the main gate and therefore, he went to open the said gate. He further deposed that when he came back, he found nobody on the scene and he thought that everything is sorted out, as both co-workers had left the said place. The Labour Court has analyzed the evidence in detail, of each of the witnesses and has come to the conclusion that the charge of assault has not been proved.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, Management filed revision being Revision Application (ULP) No. 43 of 2001 before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court has come to the conclusion that the misconduct of assault on the co-employee by the said workman has been proved and revision is partly allowed by setting aside the order of reinstatement. Further it is held that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate however, since the said worker had expired during pendency of the revision, the Industrial Court directed the Management to pay wages at the rate of 50% and other legal dues and service emoluments to the legal heirs of the deceased worker.

6. The order of the Industrial Court was challenged by both the parties by filing two writ petitions, which have been referred to above. Those writ petitions, by a common order dated 4th May, 2006 were disposed of by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge held that the Labour Court having appreciated the entire evidence on record in detail, the revisional Court is not justified in re-appreciating the evidence and modifying the order passed by the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that order of the Industrial Court is liable to be set aside, and order of the Labour Court was modified, granting reinstatement to the worker. As the worker has meantime expired, the learned Single Judge while modifying the order of the Labour Court directed the Management to treat the deceased workman in service upto the date of his death or date of superannuation, whichever is earlier and pay his dues accordingly with full back-wages.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail. The charge was framed against the delinquent workman on the basis of complaint made by the employees by name Jagdish and Mukesh. The complaint was dated 17th June, 1987. Narration in the complaint against the delinquent was that he caught hold of the collar of the complainant- Jagdish and that another person accompanying the delinquent, Krishna Shinde slapped him. This was the charge. But said Jagdish in his evidence deposed exactly contrary to the said narration. He did not depose that the delinquent caught hold of his collar; instead he deposed that Krishna Shinde caught hold his collar and the delinquent employee slapped him. Thus, the complainant-Jagdish himself did not support his complaint and thus, charge was held not proved. The learned Single Judge rightly held that the Industrial Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction should not have re-appreciated the evidence, oral and documentary, which was already appreciated by the Labour Court, without first recording the finding that the Labour Court has excluded from its consideration any piece of evidence in the appreciation of evidence; it was a clear case of exceeding jurisdiction by the Industrial Court. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in not accepting the approach adopted by the revisional Court in re- appreciating the evidence. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the learned Single Judge should not have awarded the back-wages to the worker, from the record we find that there is a clear statement made on oath by the worker that he was not gainfully employed, and after termination of his services he went to his native place and he was helping his brother in cultivation of the land; he was staying in joint family having 4 acres land. We do not find that there is any material on record to show what was the income from the agricultural land and how much income came to the share of the delinquent worker. In our opinion, learned Single Judge is justified in awarding the back-wages, in any case. In our opinion, now the as the delinquent worker has expired, whatever back-wages are to be paid to him, will have to be paid to his legal representatives i. e. his widow and son, who are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the appeals. Taking over all view of the matter, no interference in the impugned order is called for. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.

8. In view of disposal of both the appeals, personal bond which has been given for withdrawal of the amount, which was deposited, pursuant to the interim order of this Court, stands discharged. The balance amount which was invested, pursuant to said interim order, payable to the respondents, be paid to them together with accruals, if any.