Sri. R. Nagendra vs The Managing Director
2023 Latest Caselaw 859 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023

                      PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

                        AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

         WRIT APPEAL NO.6 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:

SRI. R. NAGENDRA
S/O RANGANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ON CONTRACT BASIS)
CHAMUNDESWARI ELECTRIC SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED
MYSORE, RESIDING AT NO 201
HOSAKOTE VILLAGE, NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSORE 571129
                                     ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRACHAR M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
       THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
       CORPORATION LIMITED
       CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN
       BENGALURU 560009

2.     THE GENERAL MANAGER
       (HRD) THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
       CORPORATION LIMITED.,
       CORPORATE OFFICE
       CAUVERY BHAVAN,
       BANGALORE-560 009
3.     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
                              -2-



     THE CHAMUNDESWARI ELECTRIC SUPPLY
     COMPANY LIMTED., NO.927 LG AVENUE
     COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
     NEW KANTHARAJA URS ROAD,
     SWARASWATHIPURAM
     MYSORE-570 009

4.   THE GENERAL MANAGER
     THE CHAMUNDESWARI ELECTRIC SUPPLY
     COMPANY LIMTED., NO.927 LG AVENUE
     COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
     NEW KANTHARAJA URS ROAD,
     SWARASWATHIPURAM
     MYSORE-570 009
                                   ....RESPONDENTS

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2022 PASSED IN WP
NO-19022/2014 AND BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI
OR ORDER AND ISSUE FURTHER DIRECTION TO THE
RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER IN TO
SERVICE WITH FULL BACK WAGES AND WITH ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

     THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

     2.     By   way    of   the    present    appeal,    the

appellant   before     the   learned    Single   Judge     in

W.P.No.19022/2014        challenges     the   order   dated

24.11.2022.      The   petitioner      was    subjected    to

termination pursuant to the official memorandum

order dated 20.03.2014 and the learned Single Judge

rejected the petition on the following counts:

1. The petitioner was an contract employee (meaning thereby had not attained any status of a permanent employee).

2. For the unsatisfactory performance subjected to various notices.

3. Inspite of various notices i.e., as many as 36 notices, failed to reply even a single notice.

4. The act of the petitioner was squarely covered by the terms of contract between the parties and the petitioner failed to abide by the terms of contract and arrived at a conclusion that there is absolutely no error in the action taken by the respondents against the petitioner and found that the petition is devoid of any merits. Accordingly, dismissed the petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the

appellant though made an attempt to submit before

this Court that the notices might have been issued

against the petitioner and inspite of there being

numerous notices issued against the petitioner, the

petitioner did fail to reply any of such notice. The

authority ought to have subjected the petitioner to

termination only after framing necessary charges

against the petitioner.

Learned counsel then submitted that the terms

of contract refers to the aspect of conduct under the

caption 'Conduct', there are specific sub-clauses from

A to F and there is nothing to say that the action of

the petitioner was under any of sub-clauses. Thus,

the submission of the learned counsel that the learned

Single Judge erred in dismissing the petition.

4. We are unable to accept the submissions of

the learned counsel for more than one reason. At the

cost of repetition, we state that, admittedly, the

petitioner was an contract employee. The petitioner

never attained the status of a permanent employee.

There was no reason for the respondent to follow any

process meaning thereby issuing any charge sheet

calling the response from the petitioner etc., as the

petitioner was an employee on contract basis. The

learned Single Judge also referred to terms and

conditions of contract, particularly, clause (10) and

(13). Under clause (10), the clause (10) opens with

the statement, the contract employee shall conduct

himself/herself in a disciplined manner and faithfully

safeguard the interest of the company. Then sub-

clause states that loss of confidence in the contract

employee.

5. Now, as stated above, when the

respondent found that the petitioner's behavior is not

satisfactory and his absence for the monthly meetings

of the Department level, the notices were issued to

him, they cannot be at any dispute to say that the

issuance of notice is one of the way to follow the

principle of natural justice. Thus, in the present case,

the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner and

called upon the petitioner to submit his say. The

petitioner even after receiving 36 notices, failed to

respond to any of the notices and such was the act of

the petitioner. This act certainly looses the confidence

of employer upon the employee.

6. It was the submission of the learned

counsel for the appellant that before issuance of the

termination memorandum, the requirement of one

month notice is not followed and this submission was

on the factum of terms and conditions of clause (13)

and the same reads thus:

"13. Termination of Service

The contract employee may terminate this contract of service by giving one month's notice in writing or one month's remuneration in lieu of notice. The company also reserves the right to terminate this contract of service at any time during the period of contract with one month's notice or one month's remuneration in lieu of the notice for the reasons other than the one specified in clause (7) and clause (10) of this contract."

Thus, there are clearly two parts of this terms

and conditions, the first part is, the contract employee

may terminate this contract of service by giving one

month's notice in writing and second part is, one

month's remuneration in lieu of notice. Thus, it can be

safely said that these are the two options available for

the employer.

7. The perusal of the record show that the

employer exercise the first option i.e., giving one

month's notice in writing to the petitioner. That notice

finds place on record at Annexure-R1 i.e., show-cause

notice dated 24.09.2011 and other notices at

Annexures R1(a) to R1(f).

8. Now, the very first notice dated

24.09.2011 show that the reference is made to the

act of negligence and irresponsibility of the petitioner

while he was working in the respondent-Corporation

and then, by issuing a notice, the petitioner was

called upon to submit his say for the proposed action.

At the cost of repetition, we state that, inspite of such

opportunity, not once, not twice and not thrice, but

even giving 36 opportunities, the petitioner stood firm

not to reply to the notice.

9. In our opinion, in view of the above

referred facts, the learned Single Judge committed no

error in arriving at a conclusion that the petition is

devoid of any merit and ultimately, dismissed the

petition.

10. We are unable to find any error in the

judgment of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal

thus be thoroughly merit less, deserves to be

dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

ssb