Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 419 (KAR)

R. N. Singh v. Deputy Commissioner

2001-06-06

V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2001
ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.—The Petitioner claims to be the lessee of a theatre by name Amruth Cinema Talkies in Sandur Taluk, Bellary District. He is seeking to quash the impugned notice at Annexure-G dated 20.4.2000 issued by the Village Accountant to the Proprietor of the said theatre calling upon to pay Rs. 1,86,650.00. A direction is also sought by the Petitioner to Respondents 1 to 6 to notify and hear him in respect of the claims of 7th Respondent against the 5th Respondent. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he was not given opportunity. 2. This writ petition is liable to be dismissed on more than one ground. The petition is wholly misconceived. The impugned notice is issued to the proprietor of Amruth Talkies. The Petitioner is not the proprietor of the said talkies. Admittedly the 5th Respondent is the proprietor. Therefore, the Petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition. 3. The impugned notice was issued to the 5th Respondent pursuant to an order passed by the Labour Court, Hubli, in Application No. 42 of 1996. That application was filed by the 7th Respondent claiming arrears from the 5th Respondent consequent upon his removal from service as Manager in the theatre. The claim relates to the period from 1.5.1987 to 31.12.1999 as is evident from the order at Annexure-C passed by the Labour Court. The Petitioner became the lessee only from 10.9.1995 pursuant to the lease agreement at Annexure-A entered into between himself and 5th Respondent. The claim of 7th Respondent relates to the period much earlier to the Petitioner becoming lessee of the theatre. He cannot have any grievance against the claim upto the date of his becoming the lessee. So far as the claim of 7th Respondent relating to the period after he became the lessee of the theatre is concerned, it is implied that the services of 7th Respondent were engaged in the theatre even after the Petitioner became the lessee and viewed from this angle, the Petitioner is responsible for the liability after he became the lessee of the theatre. 4. 4. The direction sought to Respondents 1 to 6 to notify and hear the Petitioner in respect of the claim of 7th Respondent against 5th Respondent cannot be granted as the said claim has already been adjudicated and the amount payable to 7th Respondent has already been determined in accordance with law. The same became final. Nothing can be done at the stage of revenue recovery proceedings. The Petitioner has not challenged the recovery certificate issued for the recovery of the amount due to the 7th Respondent and also the Award by the Labour Court owhich basis the labour Court has computed the monetary benefit due to the Petitioner and consequently recovery certificate is issued by the Labour Commissioner. 5. It is also to be noted that in respect of the claim of 7th Respondent against 5th Respondent, the Petitioner has nothing to do. He can act as a lessee of the theatre in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease agreement at Annexure-A. Beyond that the Petitioner cannot have any voice in the matter. 6. In view of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the award passed by the Labour Court under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the consequent order for recovery of the amount are binding on the Petitioner. The grievance of the Petitioner that no opportunity was given to him, is wholly untenable. Being the lessee of the theatre, he must have aware of the claim made by the 7th Respondent as Manager of the theatre. The Petitioner should have got impleaded himself in the proceedings and raised whatever objections he had. Petitioner did not make any such attempt. After conclusion of the entire issue, the Petitioner cannot seek re-opening of the same that too when he has no locus standi to file this writ petition. Writ petition is devoid of merit. 7. Since the Petitioner has unnecessarily dragged the 7th Respondent to this Court with a view to deprive him of the amounts lawfully entitled to in addition to incurring the expenses of this litigation, it is a fit case for imposing cost on the Petitioner and he is also liable to pay interest upon the amount computed at the rate of 15% during the period of pendency of this petition. 8. Writ Petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 2,500/- payable by the Petitioner to 7th Respondent.