Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1044 (KAR)

Management of NWKRTC v. Fakirappa S/o. Goudappa Pujar

2020-06-10

S.SUJATHA

body2020
ORDER : 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.04.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Belagavi in Appl. No.60/2018, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been partly allowed directing the petitioner-Corporation to pay Rs.2,60,870/-to the respondent within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the applicant/respondent is entitled to receive the said amount of Rs.2,60,870/-from the petitioner with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realization of entire amount. 2. The respondent has challenged the order of the Management in withholding his eight ensuing annual increments with cumulative effect and treating his suspension period as not on duty in I.D.No.43/2010 before the Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi. On adjudication of the matter, the Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi, has passed an award modifying the aforesaid order. The Management was directed to pay monetary benefits to the respondent. The said award was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.104276/2015 unsuccessfully. Pursuant to which the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed by the respondent to recover the due amount in terms of the award passed in I.D.No.43/2010. The Labour Court after analyzing the memo of calculation filed by the petitioner directed the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.2,60,870/-as computed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Corporation has preferred this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the Writ Appeal No.100308/2018 has been filed by the petitioner-Corporation challenging the order of the writ Court passed in W.P.No.104276/2015 and as such the impugned order passed by the Labour Court deserves to be set aside. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-Corporation is liable to pay Rs.2,60,870/-to the respondent in terms of the award passed in I.D.No.43/2010. The petitioner having suffered an order of dismissal against the said award in Writ Petition No.104276/2015 has preferred Writ Appeal No.100308/2018 which is pending consideration before this Court. It is also not in dispute that there is no interim order passed in the pending writ appeal proceedings. The petitioner having suffered an order of dismissal against the said award in Writ Petition No.104276/2015 has preferred Writ Appeal No.100308/2018 which is pending consideration before this Court. It is also not in dispute that there is no interim order passed in the pending writ appeal proceedings. Filing of the writ appeal would not absolve the petitioner from making payment in terms of the award passed in I.D.No.43/2010, unless the same is stayed by the Court. 6. In the backdrop of the case as narrated above, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed, subject to the result of the Writ Appeal No.100308/2018 pending before this Court. Ordered accordingly. The writ petition stands disposed of as indicated above.