The Divisional Controller Nekrtc vs Vithal
2022 Latest Caselaw 9164 Kant

                                1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                            PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

                              AND

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH

       WRIT APPEAL No.200083/2022 (L-KSRTC)

Between:

The Divisional Controller
NEKRTC, Vijayapura Division
Vijayapura
                                                       ...Appellant

(By Sri Deepak V. Barad, Advocate)

And:

Vithal S/o Tippanna Pare
Age: 43 Years
Occ: Driver-cum-Conductor
R/o K. Babalad, Tq. Indi
Dist. Kalaburagi-585 102
                                                    ...Respondent

       This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Courts Act, 1861, praying to set aside the order dated
16.02.2022      passed    by     the    learned single  judge   in
W.P.No.201364/2021 and consequently pleased to allow the writ
petition filed by the appellant herein.
                              2

      This appeal is coming on for preliminary hearing, this
day, SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR J., delivered the
following:

                        JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Deepak V. Barad, learned counsel for the

appellant.

2. This writ appeal has been filed assailing the

order dated 16.02.2022 in W.P.No.201364/2021. The

appellant was the writ petitioner.

3. The facts show that the respondent was

dismissed from service on 24.01.2010. Aggrieved by the

dismissal order, the respondent approached the

Industrial Tribunal by filing Application, KID No.21/2012.

By award dated 25.02.2013, the Industrial Tribunal set

aside the order of dismissal and directed the appellant to

reinstate the respondent into service with backwages.

Then the appellant challenged the order of the Tribunal

by filing W.P.No.102447/2013 and it was also dismissed.

The respondent reported to duty on 06.01.2020. In

view of reinstatement, the respondent filed Application

No.23/2020 before the Labour Court claiming arrears of

backwages. The Labour Court held an enquiry and

considering the materials before it, directed the

appellant to pay a sum of Rs.13,79,975/- with interest.

Aggrieved by that direction, the appellant preferred the

writ petition the order of which has been assailed in this

writ appeal.

4. It has been observed by the learned single

judge that since the order of reinstatement attained

finality, the respondent was entitled to claim backwages.

It is also observed that the appellant's witness i.e.,

R.W.2 accepted the calculation filed by the respondent

in regard to the arrears that he was entitled to. Once the

claim made by the respondent was accepted, we do not

think that the appellant can assail the order of the

learned single judge in the writ petition.

5. The argument of Sri Deepak V. Barad that

the respondent was only entitled to Rs.5,88,700/-

cannot be accepted. It is not based on any evidence

and moreover appellant accepted the dues put-forth by

the respondent. In this view, there are no merits to

admit this writ appeal. Therefore it is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

BL