Karnataka High Court
Satyappa Bharmappa Beleri vs The Chief Secretary Of Jilla Panchayat on 27 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14354
WP No. 61293 of 2011
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 61293 OF 2011 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
SATYAPPA BHARMAPPA BELERI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: HATTALGERI, TQ. AND DIST: GADAG.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY OF JILLA PANCHAYAT,
(AS PER NEW DISTRICT) GADAG.
2. THE SERICULTURE EXTENSION OFFICER,
TECHNICAL SERVICE CENTER,
GADAG JILLA PANCHAYAT,
SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GADAG,
(AS PER OLD DHARWAD DISTRICT).
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR ... RESPONDENTS
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
(BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE ANY
ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER QUASHING
THE AWARD PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT HUBLI
IN REFERENCE NO.29/2001 DATED: 01/06/2007 AT ANNEXURE-
E.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14354
WP No. 61293 of 2011
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assaling the award dated 01.06.2007 in Reference No. 29/2001 on the file of the Principal Labour Court at Hubbali.
2. Petitioner claims to be the employee under respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 1 is the Chief Secretary of Zilla Panchayath and respondent No. 2 is the Officer of the Sericulture Department.
3. Petitioner claims that he was appointed under Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as a skilled labourer in the Office of respondent No.1 with effect from 26.06.1979 and he was removed from service in the year 1983 without any enquiry, without any notice and without assigning any reason. Citing this, the dispute is raised before the Conciliation Officer. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Hubballi for adjudication.
4. In terms of the order dated 14.02.2001, the second party before the Reference Court raised two contentions: -3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14354 WP No. 61293 of 2011 HC-KAR
(a) the petition is hit by delay and laches;
(b) the Respondent is not an industry.
5. The Labour Court answered both questions against the petitioner. The Labour Court noticed that the dispute raised after lapse of 17 and 18 years from the date of dismissal from service is not maintainable. In addition, the Labour Court also held that the respondent is not an industry.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that no issue is framed relating to limitation. Had it been framed, the petitioner would have led evidence and limitation being a mixed question of law and fact, without framing an issue and without inviting the evidence of the party, the Labour Court could not have held that the petition is hit by delay and laches.
7. In addition to that, learned counsel would also submit that respondent is an industry and the Labour Court without any justification and without valid reason has held that the respondent No.1 - Zilla Panchayath is not an industry. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14354 WP No. 61293 of 2011 HC-KAR
8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Sandhya Baul vs Director of Panchayat And Another1.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner was removed from service in 1983 and he kept quiet for 17 years. In 2001, and later petitioner raised a dispute and Labour Court is justified in holding that the dispute raised by the petitioner is hit by delay and laches.
10. In addition, learned counsel for the respondents would also place reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Executive Engineer and Anr. vs D.Basavaraj2. It is his contention that in the case of Executive Engineer versus D. Basavaraj supra, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that the Zilla Panchayat is not an industry, as such, would urge 1 2006(1) LLJ 637 2 Writ Petition No. 5891/2012 -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14354 WP No. 61293 of 2011 HC-KAR that the issue raised in the petition is squarely covered in terms of the law laid down in the aforementioned judgment.
11. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.
12. It is to be noticed that in the case of Executive Engineer vs D. Basavaraj supra, the Court has referred to the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in The Assistant Executive Engineer, Mangalore vs Karnataka State Government Daily Wage Employees Federation, Mangalore3. In the aforementioned judgment, the Court has held that the Public Works Department cannot be treated as an industry. Since, the respondents in the present petition do not fall under the category of Public Works Department, this Court is of the view that the aforementioned judgment does not apply to the facts of this case.
13. As far as the delay and laches is concerned, though learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that no issue is 3 ILR 2004 Kar 1619 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14354 WP No. 61293 of 2011 HC-KAR framed, it is required to be noticed from the averment made in the claim statement that the petitioner states that he was removed from service on 01.04.1983 and it is his further statement that he made a claim for reinstatement on 20.01.1985. In paragraph No.3 of the claim statement, petitioner further states that on 25.03.1990, he filed one more application and on 08.02.1994 a third application is filed to restore his services.
14. From paragraph No.3 of the petition it is noticed that the last of such application which according to the petitioner was filed on 08.02.1994. Thereafter, it appears that no such application is filed. Even otherwise, the first application itself is of 1985 and thereafter, till 25.03.1990 no such application is filed and copies of those applications are not produced before the Court.
15. Assuming that the applications are filed on the dates referred to above, still it does not explain the due diligence on the part of the petitioner. Petitioner ought to have taken action much earlier.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14354 WP No. 61293 of 2011 HC-KAR
16. Merely because an issue is not raised, it does not mean that the obligation on the part of the petitioner to explain the delay and laches is absolved and petitioner, can straight away proceed to urge his contention on merits of the matter.
17. In paragraph No.3 of the statement of objection, the respondents have clearly contended that the petitioner's claim is time barred. The Trial Court has noted that the dispute raised after 17 to 18 years is not maintainable. Thereafter, the reference is rejected in terms of the impugned award dated 01.06.2007.
18. Even in the writ petition, petitioners have not explained the delay in questioning the award. Though the award is passed on 01.06.2007, writ petition is filed on 10.02.2011, almost 3½ years after the award. Even in the Writ Petition, the petitioner has not produced any document to show that he was pursuing his remedy by filing application before the competent authority. No explanation is offered in the Writ Petition as to what prevented the petitioner from raising the dispute at the earliest possible opportunity.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14354 WP No. 61293 of 2011 HC-KAR
19. Under these circumstances, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
20. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 4