Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer (E) vs Venkappa S/O Balakrishna ... on 21 October, 2021
Author: M.I.Arun
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO.104172/2013 (L-RES)
Between:
The Executive Engineer (E),
O & M Division (HESCOM),
Post : Jamkhandi,
District : Bagalkot.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Ravindra Reddy, Advocate)
And:
Venkappa S/o Balakrishna Vajantri,
Age : 40 years, Occ : Ex.G.V.P.P.,
R/o Slum Area, Rampur,
Taluk : Jamkhandi,
District : Bagalkot.
... Respondent
(By Sri P.Vilas Kumar, Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ order or
direction in nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
judgment and award dated 16.08.2012 in KID No.11/2012
passed by the Labour Court, Bijapur vide Annexure-E.
2
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition
challenging the award dated 16.08.2012 passed in KID
No.11/2012, by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Bijapur.
2. The respondent herein is said to have working
with the petitioner as Gram Vidyut Pratinidhi, since 2004.
It is the case of respondent that his services has been
wrongly terminated on 22.07.2011. Aggrieved by the said
termination, the respondent preferred KID No.11/2012
before the Labour Court at Vijayapur. Inspite of due
services of notice, the petitioner herein remained absent
before the Labour Court and the claim made by the
respondent herein was allowed by the Labour Court and
the impugned order is passed directing the petitioner
herein to reinstate the respondent herein into service with
all consequential benefits and back wages.
3. The said impugned award is challenged in this
writ petition on the ground that the notice served upon the
petitioner by the Labour Court was misplaced and was lost
and hence they could not prosecute the proceedings before
the Labour Court. It is contended that they have a good
case on merits and if an opportunity is given to the
petitioner it would adduce necessary evidence justifying
the removal of respondent from the service.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent justifies the impugned award contending that
the termination of respondent is illegal and inspite of
several opportunities the petitioner deliberately did not
appear and prosecute the case before the Labour Court.
5. It is further submitted that the respondent has
not been reinstated into service even till today. Inspite of
impugned order he is unemployed and he is put to undue
hardship and he has not been paid any amount as directed
by the Labour Court.
6. In the course of argument, the learned counsel
for petitioner fairly submits that in the event of writ
petition being allowed the matter being remanded back to
the Labour Court, they would reinstate the respondent into
service to the position held by him before the termination
and paying present wages subject to result of adjudication
of the dispute before the Labour Court.
7. His submission is placed on record.
8. Hence, the following :
ORDER
The writ petition is allowed.
The matter stands remitted back to the Labour
Court, Vijayapur for fresh adjudication by giving an
opportunity to the respondent to file its objections along
with necessary documents and the Labour Court is hereby
directed to decide the dispute in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible after giving due opportunities for
both the parties concerned.
The parties are hereby directed to appear before the
Labour Court on 23.11.2021, without any further notice.
The petitioner shall reinstate the respondent into
service forthwith to the post held by him at the time of his
termination.
The petitioner shall also pay cost of `5,000/- to the
respondent.
SD/-
JUDGE
sn
