Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY WRIT PETITION NO.17303 OF 2009 (L-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S.BIOCON LIMITED 20TH K.M.HOSUR ROAD, ELECTRONICS CITY. P.O BANGALORE – 560 100 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.B C PRABHAKAR, ADV.)
AND:
MARIE THERESA FERNANDES, W/O. MR. PINTO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT COZY COTTAGE, ALAPE, PADIL MANGALORE
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.02.12.2008 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE, IN APPLICATION NO.16/2006 ANNEX-L.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY AFTER HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 19.03.2018, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Being aggrieved by the order dated 02.12.2008 passed by the Labour Court, Bangalore directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1,31,194.00 with cost and interest at 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of actual payment, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to award in Ref. No.118/1996, letter was sent to the address furnished by the respondent in the said reference, but the letter was returned unserved with a postal shara `not claimed’. Later on the petitioner secured address of the respondent from the claim form of Provident Fund and sent an Account Payee cheque for Rs.3,18,806/- after deducting Rs.48,064/- towards amount due to the petitioner company and Rs.83,130/- towards income tax. Even the cheque was returned with postal shara `not
claimed’. The respondent did not approach the petitioner and the respondent did not come forward to furnish the present address to the Management and also not given representation to the management to implement the award furnishing the latest address. However, surprisingly the respondent filed application under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act for recovery of Rs.4,50,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum. The petitioner filed statement of objections tendering cheque for Rs.3,18,806/- and claiming that Rs.48,064.00 is deducted towards company dues and Rs.83,130/- towards income tax. The Labour Court after recording of evidence held that Rs.48,064.00 deducted by the petitioner is not correct as there is no acceptable evidence on record to support its claim. Further the Company was duty bound to bifurcate the amount payable regarding back wages to the respondent year-wise and to see whether the respondent was liable to pay income tax during those years. Therefore, deduction of Rs.83,130/- towards incometax is also not in accordance with Income-tax Act. Thus the Labour Court
allowed the application. Aggrieved by which the present writ petition is filed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned order.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the view taken by the labour court that there is no acceptable evidence to show that the respondent was due a sum of Rs.48,064/- is not proper. It is further submitted that income tax deduction is a statutory deduction, which could not have been disallowed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order.
It is not in dispute that award was passed for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. The contention of the petitioner that a sum of RS.48,064/- was due from the respondent was not supported by an acceptable evidence. The amount computed at Rs.4,50,000/- was towards back
wages of the respondent in view of her illegal termination from 9.4.1996. The Company was duty bound to bifurcate the amount payable regarding backwages to the respondent year-wise and to see whether the applicant was liable to pay the income tax. It is not the case of the petitioner that amount was so bifurcated and the respondent was liable to pay income tax in a sum of Rs.83,130/-. Therefore, no fault can be found in the order passed by the Labour Court calling for interference by this Court.
In the result, this writ petition is liable to be rejected and it is accordingly rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE akd