M/S INTUIT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. SRI VIJAYA GANAPATI

We have heard Sri Ajesh Kumar S., learned counsel for the appellant, Sri K.Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel for Miss Maitreyi Krishnan, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

Appellant is aggrieved by the interim order dated 22.07.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.874/2020 connected with W.P.No.7022/2020. By the said order, the learned Single Judge has issued the following directions:

Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent herein was an employee of the appellant – Company. He is stated to have been terminated from service with effect from 16.08.2012. The said termination was assailed by the respondent by raising an Industrial Dispute No.21/2013 before the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru. By award dated 25.11.2019, the Labour Court rejected the reference under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for the sake of brevity). Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein preferred his writ petition. The appellant herein also filed its writ petition being aggrieved by the finding that the termination of the respondent was illegal.

In the writ petitions, the impugned interim order has been passed. Hence, this appeal.

Appellant’s counsel submitted that when the reference itself has been rejected and no order of reinstatement has been made by the Labour Court, the impugned order which is in the nature of an order passed under Section 17B of the Act could not have been made. He submitted that if the respondent is successful in his writ petition and reinstatement is ordered by this Court, then the appellant would be liable to pay the backwages in accordance with the directions to be issued by this Court. Therefore, at this stage, the direction to deposit the backwages from 02.08.2012 up to date with the registry of this Court was not warranted.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, however, supported the impugned order and contended that there is a categorical finding that the termination of the respondent was illegal by the Labour Court. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to reinstatement as well as backwages and that is precisely the prayer which was sought for by the respondent in

We have already noted the directions of the learned Single Judge impugned in this writ appeal. The detailed narration of facts and contentions would not call for reiteration.

On a perusal of the impugned award, it is noted that the termination of the respondent was held to be not justified. However, the reference itself was rejected. In the circumstances, there has been no order of reinstatement made by the Labour Court. If any order had to be made under Section 17B of the Act, then the necessary precondition is that there must be a direction for reinstatement of any workman, in which case, full

In the instant case, there being no direction for reinstatement, the payment of any backwages did not arise at all. However, having regard to the interim prayer sought for by the respondent, the learned Single Judge has directed the employer to deposit the backwages from 02.08.2012 before this Court. We think that the said order was not just and proper in the instant case since the reference itself was rejected by the Labour Court. Also, it is not the case of the respondent that the appellant is not solvent enough to pay the backwages in case. The respondent is successful in the matter if any such orders is passed. Also it is not known as to whether the respondent is earning any income from any other employment subsequent to his termination from the appellant company. In the

The Writ Appeal is allowed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent to seek relief in terms of Section 17B of the Act, if so advised and if the same is applicable in the present case.