Skip to content


Sreekantayya (L.) Vs. Puttaswami (M.) and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Petition No. 132 of 1966
Judge
Reported in(1969)IILLJ440Kant
ActsMysore Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 - Sections 41(2); Payment of Wages Act - Sections 15(3)
AppellantSreekantayya (L.)
RespondentPuttaswami (M.) and anr.
Excerpt:
- industrial disputes act, 1947 [c.a. no. 14/1947]. section 25-f: [subhash b. adi, j] retrenchment employment of a workman in respect of non-sanctioned post - claim of the workman/respondents that he has worked for 240 days of continuous service in a year termination award for reinstatement held, having found that the engagement of the respondent in respect f a particular project and against the non-sanctioned post, there is no provision for continuing the workman in a post, which is not sanctioned and continuing the person in respect of a non-sanctioned post amounts to continuation in a post which is not in existence, would be illegal and amount to creating the post without cadre strength. on facts, held, in the present case the workman has proved that he has worked 240 days in a..........to order it. so, the petitioner asks us to quash that order made by the magistrate and to direct restitution.4. it is clear that the magistrate abdicated his jurisdiction when he declined to direct restitution. the payment by the petitioner was made in obedience to an order made by the magistrate which he had no jurisdiction to make. if that order was quashed by this court on that ground, it is the clear duty of the magistrate to put the petitioner back into the position which he had occupied before he was coerced to make the payment by an order made by the magistrate which was beyond his jurisdiction.5. that being so, we quash the order of the magistrate and direct him to take suitable proceedings for making the restitution sought by the petitioner.6. in the circumstances, no.....
Judgment:

Somnath Ayyar, J.

1. Respondent 1 was an employee under the petitioner, and when he was removed from service for misconduct, he preferred an appeal to the labour officer under S. 41(2) of the Mysore Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. In that appeal, the labour officer directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 200 as compensation to respondent 1. When that amount was not paid respondent 1 made an application under S. 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act to the city magistrate. Mysore, for an order for the payment. That order which was made by the magistrate was however quashed by this Court in Srikantayya (L.) (Proprietor of S.E.L. Dry Cleaners) V. Puttaswami (M.) and another [1966 - II L.L.J. 487] on the ground that it was beyond the competence of the magistrate.

2. But by then the petitioner had paid the amount to respondent 1, and so, he made an application to the magistrate for restitution.

3. The magistrate declined restitution on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to order it. So, the petitioner asks us to quash that order made by the magistrate and to direct restitution.

4. It is clear that the magistrate abdicated his jurisdiction when he declined to direct restitution. The payment by the petitioner was made in obedience to an order made by the magistrate which he had no jurisdiction to make. If that order was quashed by this Court on that ground, it is the clear duty of the magistrate to put the petitioner back into the position which he had occupied before he was coerced to make the payment by an order made by the magistrate which was beyond his jurisdiction.

5. That being so, we quash the order of the magistrate and direct him to take suitable proceedings for making the restitution sought by the petitioner.

6. In the circumstances, no costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //