The Divisional Controller And Anr vs Govind S/O Annappa Rathod
2022 Latest Caselaw 1972 Kant

                            1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

      WRIT PETITION NO.201617 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC)

1 . THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
N.E.K.R.T.C VIJAYAPURA DIVISION,
VIJAYAPURA

2 . THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
N.E.K.R.T.C. KALABURAGI DIVISION NO.1,
KALABURAGI,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
                                          ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI DEEPAK V BARAD, ADVOCATE)

AND

GOVIND
S/O ANNAPPA RATHOD
AGE 51 YEARS
OCC: NIL
R/O KOUJALAGIN TANDA
WARD NO.35
VIJAYAPURA 586 101
                                           ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NITESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

     THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
PETITIONER PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING ORDER DATED 25.01.2021 PASSED BY
                                     2




THE LABOUR COURT, VIJAYAPURA IN APPLICATION NO. 11/2018
AS AT ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION IS COMING FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                             ORDER

Petitioner has challenged the order dated 25th January,

2021 passed by the Labour Court, Vijayapura in Application

No.11 of 2018, allowing the application in part.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this petition

are referred to with their status and rank before the Labour

Court.

3. It is the case of the applicant that he joined the

respondent-Corporation as a Conductor and he was dismissed

from service on 07th September, 2013. Applicant has filed KID

No.4 of 2014 before the Labour Court, which came to be

allowed, directing the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the

applicant into service with continuity of service and

consequential benefits. It is the grievance of the petitioner that

the respondent-Corporation has preferred Writ petition

No.200027 of 2016 before this Court, which came to be

dismissed on 05th March, 2016 and thereafter, the applicant filed

Application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 seeking consequential benefits. The respondent-

Corporation entered appearance, filed objection seeking rejection

of the Application. The Labour Court, formulated issues for its

consideration.

In order to prove the application, Applicant was examined

as PW1 and two documents were marked on behalf of him as

Exhibit P1 and P2. Respondent-Corporation examined two

witnesses as RW1 and RW2 and produced five doucments and

same were marked as Exhibits R1 to R5. The Labour Court,

after considering the material on record, by its order dated 25 th

January, 2021, allowed the application in part and directed the

respondent-Corporation to pay sum of Rs.7,73,484/- with

interest. Feeling aggrieved by the same, respondent-

Corporation has filed this writ petition.

Sri Deepak V. Barad, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-Corporation contended that after passing of the

award the applicant has not reported for duty and therefore, the

applicant is not entitled for relief and accordingly, sought for

setting aside the impugned order.

Per contra, Sri Nitesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing

for the applicant, sought to justify the impugned order.

Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the

Labour Court, allowed the petition filed by the applicant in KID

No.4 of 2014 and as such, directed the respondent-Corporation

to reinstate the applicant into service with consequential

benefits. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent-

Corporation filed Writ petition No.200027 of 2016 before this

Court, which came to be dismissed and thereafter, the appeal

preferred by the respondent-Corporation in Writ Appeal

No.200671 of 2018 also came to be dismissed, resulting in

confirmation of the Award made by the Labour Court made in

KID No.4 of 2014. Perusal of the impugned order further

indicate that the memo of calculation made by the applicant was

accepted by RW1 and RW2 as per paragraph 19 of the impugned

judgment. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality

or perversity in the order of the Award of the Labour Court. In

the result, writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

lnn