Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 443 (KAR)

Diwakar P. Shimpi v. State of Karnataka

2023-03-15

M.I.ARUN

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER M.I. Arun, J. - The petitioners were employees of 3rd respondent Company. The 3rd respondent has made them retire from service, upon they reaching the age of 58 years. On the ground that, as per the amended provisions of The Karnataka Industrial Employment (standing orders), the petitioners should have been continued in service till they reached the age of 60 years, the present writ petition is filed. 2. During the course of the arguments, all the contesting parties submitted that the question is no more res integra and the same has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.100250/2021 and it is prayed that the present writ petition also be disposed off on similar terms. 3. The operative portion of the order passed in W.A. No.100250/2021 reads as hereunder: (i) This Writ Appeal being devoid of merits fails; (ii) The Appellant is directed to continue the workmen in its service till they attain the age of 60 years in terms of amendment to Clause 29 of the Certified Standing Orders w.e.f. 17.03.2018; (iii) The Appellant is directed to reinstate with continuity of service and pay full back wages to such of the workmen who retired on or after 17.09.2021, i.e., the day on which W.P.No.106307/2018 was dismissed, if on medical examination they are not found to be unfit for reemployment; (iv) Such of the retirees falling under the preceding clause but on medical examination are found to be unfit for reemployment shall be paid only 50% of the Back Wages for the period between the date of their retirement and the date on which they are called for medical examination; (v) The Appellant shall pay 50% of the Back Wages to such of the employees who retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years on or after 17.03.2018, for the period between the date of their retirement and the date on which they attained 60 years or the date of death, whichever is earlier. (vi) The claim of any other employees who are otherwise entitled to the benefit of amended Clause 29 of Certified Standing Order but do not fit into any of the clauses hereinabove may approach the 2nd Respondent - Deputy Labour Commissioner and work out their grievances. (vi) The claim of any other employees who are otherwise entitled to the benefit of amended Clause 29 of Certified Standing Order but do not fit into any of the clauses hereinabove may approach the 2nd Respondent - Deputy Labour Commissioner and work out their grievances. (vii) The amount payable by way of Back Wages shall be paid within a period of 60 days and that the delay shall carry interest at the rate of 2% per mensem. Costs made easy. Before parting with this case this Court places on record its deep appreciation for the able research and assistance rendered by its Official Law Clerk cum Research Assistant Mr.Faiz Afsar Sait. 4. The petitioners are similarly situated as that of the employees of the appellant in W.A. No.100250/2021. There is no reason why the order passed in W.A. No.100250/2021 should not enure to the benefit of the petitioners herein who are qualified for such benefits as stated in the writ appeal. Hence, the instant writ petition is also disposed off in terms of the order passed in W.A. No.100250/2021 and the petitioners herein who are entitled for the benefits as per the said order shall be given those benefits by respondent No.3.