w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



R. Gangabyraiah v/s The General Manager, M/s. Spinning & Manufacturing Mills Minerva Mills


Company & Directors' Information:- GENERAL MILLS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15510MH1995PTC094741

Company & Directors' Information:- S T S MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112TZ2006PTC012940

Company & Directors' Information:- MINERVA MILLS LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1919PTC000656

Company & Directors' Information:- A S P MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U36900WB1991PTC005146

Company & Directors' Information:- B R D MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1997PTC085188

Company & Directors' Information:- G N GENERAL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15311DL1981PTC012466

Company & Directors' Information:- M M MANUFACTURING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U26922WB1993PTC059837

Company & Directors' Information:- S B MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31506WB1999PTC088567

Company & Directors' Information:- K. V. J. MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29308DL2017PTC320213

Company & Directors' Information:- G K MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34300PB2012PTC036073

Company & Directors' Information:- MINERVA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31909HR2020PTC086140

Company & Directors' Information:- MINERVA MILLS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17113KA1974PLC002653

    W.P. No. 15613 of 2006(L-TER)

    Decided On, 06 August 2012

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. SUBHASH BADI

    For the Petitioner: B.V. Putte Gowda, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ramachandran, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has called in question the order dated 14th September 2006 in Application No. 9/2006 on the file of Principal Labour Court, Bangalore. Petitioner had filed an Application under Section 33-C, Clause (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for brevity ‘the Act’) inter alia claiming that, he had worked for the Respondent-Establishment from 24.12.1988 to 08.03.2005. He retired by taking voluntary retirement. However, the Petitioner was dismissed from service on 23.12.1987 and by virtue of the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 195/1988, he was reinstated into service with 25% of backwages, however, the said order was called in question before this Court in W.P. No.8588/2001. This Court by order dated 18th June 2001, though confirmed the order of reinstatement, but denied the backwages on the ground that, the Petitioner was gainfully employed.

2. The Labour Court has rejected the Claim Petition under Section 33-C, Clause (2) of the Act on the ground that, the award passed by the Labour Court reinstating the Petitioner has net directed for grant of consequential benefits, as such, Petitioner is not entitled for consequential benefits. It is against the said order, Petitioner is before this Court.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that, if there is an award for reinstatement, it presupposes the continuity of service as well as for consequential benefits. He also submitted that, the fact that 25% back wages is granted which, though denied on account of gainful employment of the Petitioner, the Petitioner became entitled for all consequential benefits. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by this Court. To support his contention, he relied on the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.5642/2010 dated 9th December 2010 and the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Sain Steel Products v. Naipal Singh and others, 2001 (2) LLN 859 (SC): 2001 LAB.LC 2372 and in the matter of Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2002 (92) FLR 838 and submitted that, the reinstatement means, back into service from the date on which he was dismissed and it deemed to have been continued in service from the date on which he joined the service till retirement. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Labour Court.

4. On the other hand, Sri Ramachandran, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that, it is not in dispute that the Petitioner was dismissed from service and he was reinstated by virtue of award passed by the Labour Court in LD. No.195/1988 and the said award only reads as under:

'The 2nd party is directed to reinstate the 1st party forthwith if he has not attained the age of superannuation. He shall be paid 25% of back wages from the date of refusal of employment i.e. 23.12.1988 upto date of reinstatement.'

The Labour Court did not grant either continuity of service or consequential benefits. He also submitted that, even if it is treated as continuity of service, Petitioner is not entitled for consequential benefits, as there is no express award passed in this regard. To support his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2001 SCC (L&S) 3 para-8 and submitted that, grant of reinstatement does not confer right of claim of consequential benefits, as the said relief deemed to have been denied by the Labour Court itself. Similarly, he relied on another judgment reported in the matter of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others v. Abdul Karean, 2005 (6) SCC 36 paras 10 & 11 and submitted that, in the absence of specific direction in that regard, merely because an Employee has been directed to be reinstated without backwages, he cannot claim a benefit of increments notionally earned during the period when he was out of service. Continuity of service and a direction where reinstatement is accompained by a specific direction that the Employee shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, which necessarily flow from reinstatement or accompanied by a specific direction that the Employee shall be entitled to the benefit of the increments earned during the period of absence.

5. He further relied on two other judgments reported in the matter of Handurd (Walt) Laboratories v. Dy. Labour Commissioner and others, 2007 (2) SCC (L&S) 166 and in the matter of I. Laxman Reddy v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and others, 2008 (2) LLN 711.

6. It is now well settled that, if the award is silent as regard to the grant of consequential benefits and if the award only grants reinstatement, it does not confer any right on the Workman to claim consequential bene

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

fits. In this case, admittedly, there is no award for continuity of service and consequential benefits, as such, when there is no express award passed in favour of the Petitioner, merely because he has been reinstated into service, he does not automatically get the consequential benefits. Hence the Labour Court has rightly held that the Petitioner is gainfully employed and is not entitled for any consequential benefits. I find no ground to interfere with the same. Hence, the Petition fails and same is dismissed.
O R