Shivakka Ramappa Lankannavar, vs Executive Engineer,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3241 Kant

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

                          PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI
                            AND
         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
            WRIT APPEAL No.101487/2016 (L-TER)

BETWEEN:

SHIVAKKA RAMAPPA LANKANNAVAR
AGE:56 YEARS, R/O POST MUKKA,
KIRESUR (RUSTUMPUR),
TQ:HUKKERI, DIST:BELAGAVI.
                                            ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
       GRBCC DIVISION NO.1,
       HIDAKAL DAM, DIST:BELAGAVI.

2.     ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
       GRBCC SUB-DIVISION NO.1,
       HIDKALDAM, DIST:BELAGAVI.
                                         ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN WP NO.63085/2010 (L-TER) DATED 3.8.2016
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL
WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
P.B.BAJANTHRI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 2


                          JUDGMENT

The present writ appeal is against the order dated

3.8.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP

No.63085/2010.

2. The undisputed facts are that the appellant was

initially appointed as a daily wage employee in the year 1984

and she has continuously worked upto 15.11.1985 and she

was abruptly relieved from service without assigning any

reason. In the result, she was compelled to raise industrial

dispute before the jurisdictional authority and same was

referred to Addl. Labour Court, Hubli. The Labour Court

passed the award in favour of the appellant, which was the

subject matter of WP No.63085/2010 filed on behalf of the

respondents/-Executive Engineer, GRBCC Division No.1,

Hidakal Dam, Belagavi District and another.

3. The learned Single Judge after due appreciation

of the factual matter and also taking note of the delay aspect

proceeded to allow the writ petition by setting aside the

award passed by the Labour Court, Hubli.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

having regard to the status of the appellant that she was

engaged as a daily wage employee and she was removed

from service abruptly and it amounts to unfair labour

practice. It is submitted that instead of reinstatement and

consequential benefits, she is entitled to compensation and

the same has not been taken note of by the learned Single

Judge while allowing the writ petition. Learned counsel in

support of claiming compensation relied upon a decision of

the Apex Court in the case of BSNL Vs. Bhurumal reported

in (2014) 7 SCC 177 and Man Singh Vs. BSNL.

5. On the other hand, learned Government

Advocate appearing for the respondents resisted the

contention of the appellant and supported the order of the

learned Single Judge. It is further submitted that the

appellant is not entitled to compensation as she has rendered

only one year of service.

6. Heard the learned counsels for the respective

parties.

7. The appellant has not made out a case on merits

insofar as her reinstatement and consequential benefits for

the reason that the appellant was appointed as a daily wage

employee and she worked for a period of about one year.

Since the appellant is not entitled to reinstatement and

consequential benefits and she is entitled to compensation on

the ground of unfair labour practice. This Court has taken

note of in the aforesaid decisions relating to grant of

compensation instead of reinstatement and consequential

benefits. Therefore, in terms of the aforesaid decisions of

the Hon'ble Apex Court, the appellant is entitled to

compensation which is quantified at Rs.50,000/-. The

concerned respondent is hereby directed to pay the said

compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- within a period of three

months from today, failing which, the appellant is entitled to

interest on the said amount at the rate of 8% per annum

from the date of presentation of writ appeal till payment is

made.

8. With the above observations, the writ appeal

stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE JTR