The Managing Director vs Mallikarjun S/O. Shivarayappa ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 165 Kant

                          -1-

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                        PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

                          AND

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

              W.A. NO.100267/2018 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NWKRTC, GADAG DIVISION
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
GADAG DIVISION, GADAG
THE APPELLANT IS REP. BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC,
CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI.
                                               ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.P.N.HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MALLIKARJUN S/O SHIVARAYAPPA NEERLOTE,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O AT POST: ABBITERI,
TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG 583201.
                                              ...RESPONDENT
     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE
COURT TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 21.03.2018 MADE IN W.P.NO.105174/2017
(L-KSRTC) AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                    -2-

                                JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This intra Court appeal is directed against the order

of the learned Single Judge rendered in W.P.No.105174/2017

dated 21.03.2018, whereby the learned Single Judge has been

pleased to partly allow the writ petition and modify the order

passed by the Labour Court to the extent denying the

respondent-petitioner of continuity of services and imposition of

penalty of three annual increments with cumulative effect but

was pleased not to disturb the rejection of back wages. The

dispute and the writ petition came to be allowed on the short

ground that there is no compliance of the mandatory provisions

of Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The law in

this regard is no longer res integra and has been settled by the

Hon'ble Apex Court by catena of decisions.

3. It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellant that there has indeed been a violation of the provisions

of Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

4. In that view of the matter and in view of settled

position of law, we deem it appropriate not to interfere with the

reasoned orders passed by the learned Single Judge. In our

considered opinion, the denial of back wages is also appropriate.

5. In that view of the matter, the writ appeal is

rejected.

In view of rejection of the writ appeal, applications for

condonation of delay and stay would not survive for

consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE sh