Karnataka High Court
The Management Of Express vs G Dinesh Babu on 25 October, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:37845-DB
WA No. 419 of 2023
C/W WA No. 421 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 419 OF 2023 (L-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2023 (L-RES)
IN W.A.NO.419/2023:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF EXPRESS
PUBLICATION (MADURAI) LTD.
THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS GROUP
EXPRESS BUILDING,
NO.1, QUEENS ROAD,
Digitally signed
BENGALURU-560 001.
by SHARADA REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
VANI B
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. K KASTURI., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. GOVINDARAJ K.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BANGALORE NEWSPAPER EMPLOYEES UNION
NO.75, M.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:37845-DB
WA No. 419 of 2023
C/W WA No. 421 of 2023
LABOUR DEPARTMENT, VIKASASOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.NARAYANA SWAMY K B.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR., ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W. P. No. 39947/2017
DATED 24.02.2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN W.A.NO.421/2023:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF EXPRESS
PUBLICATION (MADURAI) LTD.,
THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS GROUP
EXPRESS BUILDING,
No. 1, QUEENS ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 001.
REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.K KASTURI., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.GOVINDRAJ K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. G DINESH BABU
S/O P GOVINDARAJULU NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
NO 125, 5TH CROSS,
ADL KABIR ASHRAM ROAD,
MOTI NAGAR, R T NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU 560 032.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:37845-DB
WA No. 419 of 2023
C/W WA No. 421 of 2023
2. B MUNISWAMY,
S/O B SUBRAMANIAM,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
NO 9, 7TH CROSS MARKET ROAD,
LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA,.
SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU 560 021.
3. V S JAGADEEESH,
S/O SIDDALINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
SIDDLINGESHWARA NILAYA,
NO 40, 4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN,
BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR,
T DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU 560 057.
4. D S VENKATESH MURTHY,
S/O D SHANKARA NARYANA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
C/O SUBBALAKSHMAMMA,
NO 11, FORT DEVANAHALLI,
BENGALURU 562 110.
5. R CHAKRAVARTHI,
S/O RANGASWAMY NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
NO 49, THE GRAND FIELDS,
HOMMADEVANHALLI GOTTIGERE POST,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 083.
6. D VENKATESULU,
S/O VENKATRAMAIAH SASTRY,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
NO 98, 10TH MAIN,
KURUBARAHALLI, BENGALURU 560 052.
7. B BABU S/O LATE BALU,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
NO 35/1, 7TH CROSS,
CHIKKATHAYAPPA ROAD, AMBEKAR COLONY,
VASANTHNAGAR, BENGALURU 560 052.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:37845-DB
WA No. 419 of 2023
C/W WA No. 421 of 2023
8. S LAKSHMAIAH,
S/O LATE SAMPANGI RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
NO 12, H STREET, 10TH CROSS,
MAGADI RAOD, BENGALURU 560 023.
9. R THANDAVA MURTHY,
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAN,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
NO 4, CHINAPPA GARDEN,
BENSON TOWN PO, BENGALURU 560 046.
10 . A LAKSHMANA MURTHY,
S/O APPAIYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
NO 316, ASWATHNAGAR,
THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD,
ARABIC COLLEGE POST,
BENGALURU 560 005.
11 . K SURYANARAYANA RAJU,
S/O K KRISHNAM RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
NO 4046, 19TH MAIN ROAD,
H A L 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU 560 008.
12 . M.SRINATH,
S/O M. MUNUVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
NO.1015, 8TH MAIN ROAD,
JUDICIAL LAYOUT, G.K.V.K. POST,
BENGALURU-560 045.
13 . P.VIVEKANANDAN,
S/O PARASURAM,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
NO.26/13TH CROSS, J.C. NAGAR,
KURBARAHALLI,
MAHAKASHMIPURAM, POST,
BENGALURU-560 086.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:37845-DB
WA No. 419 of 2023
C/W WA No. 421 of 2023
14 . A. NARAYANA RAO,
SINCE DECEASED , BY LRS
14(A) SMT.LAKSHMIBAI.M,
W/O LATE A. NARYANA RAO,
AGED 53 YEARS
14(B) DIVYA BHARATHI BAI.N,
D/O LATE A. NARYANA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
14(C) NAVEEN RAO.N,
S/O LATE A. NARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.38./22,
VINAYAKA LAYOUT, 12TH CROSS,
MANORYANAPALYA, R T NAGARA POST,
BENGALORE-560 032.
15 . M.NAGARAJU,
S/O RAMACHANDRAIAHM
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
NO.844, F BLOCK,
NEAR ESCORTS AND GEOTZE LAYOUT,
NEAR OM SHAKTHI TEMPLE, ATTUR LAYOUT,
ATTUR MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA POST,
BENGALURU-560 064.
16. P.RAVI S/O PARASURAM,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
NO.26 13TH CROSS,
J.C NAGAR, KURBARAHALLI,
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, POST,
BENGALURU-560 086.
17 . K.RAMALINGAM,
S/O M, KANDASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
NO.5 KRISHNAPPA LAND,
KADUGODI, WHITEFIELD,
BENGALURU-560 067.
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:37845-DB
WA No. 419 of 2023
C/W WA No. 421 of 2023
18 . B.S NAGARAJ,
S/O SRIKANTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
NO.15, SRINIVASA NILAYA,
5TH CROSS, SUBANNA GARDEN,
VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040.
19 . R. MURTHY S/O RATHNAM,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
NO.312, 9TH CROSS,
6TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE,
PILLANNA GARDEN,
BENGALURU-560 045.
20 . S.RAMSINGH,
S/O SARDAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
NO.1/1. 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN, AZAD NAGAR,
CHAMARAJPET, POST,
BENGALURU-560 018.
21 . P. PANJAMANI S/O PERUMALM
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
NO.673, NR. MUNESHWARA TEMPLE,
KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT,
SUBBANNAPALYA,
BENGALURU-560 033.
22 . P.BABU S/O LATE B.M PERUMAL,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
NO.16/13 B BLOCK,
DGQA RESIDENTIAL QTRS,
GUNATHA VIHAR, R T NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 006.
23 . DHARAM RAJ.V,
S/O VASUDEVAN.R
AGED MAJOR,(ABOUT YEARS),
NO.7, 10TH CROSS,
BHAGYA JYOTHI PALYA,
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:37845-DB
WA No. 419 of 2023
C/W WA No. 421 of 2023
24 . M.HARIBABU S/O MOHAN,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
NO.51/2, 7TH CROSS,
CHIKKATHAYAPPA STREET,
VASANTHNAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 052.
25 . P.VENKATESH,
S/O PARTHASARATHY NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
NO.343, 5TH MAIN, 3RD PHASE,
MANJUNATH NAGAR,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 010.
26 . DAIVEGAN.R.,.
S/O RAJENDRAN,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
NO.1/7 RANGAMMA GARDEN,
PSK NAIDU ROAD,
DODDIGUNTA, COX TOWN
BENGALURU-560 005.
27 . GERALD HUGGINS S/O JERRY HUGGINS,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
KRISHNAPPA BUILDING, 2ND CROSS,
PEMME GOWDA ROAD, J. C NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 006.
28 . G.JAYAPRAKASH,
S/O GOVINDASWAMMY CHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
NO.11, 2ND CROSS, MVR BLOCK,
J. C NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 006.
29 . R.ELUMALAI S/O LATE RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
NO.14,-A, 65/2, GANGAPPALYT,
BEHIND TTK, SHAKTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 016.
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:37845-DB
WA No. 419 of 2023
C/W WA No. 421 of 2023
30 . N. SURENDRA SINGH,
S/O B.H NARYANA SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
C/O SANJU, SHREYAS NILAYA, 11TH CROSS,
VISHWANATH NAGENAHALLI,
R.T NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 032.
31 . JAVARAIAH.S,
S/O SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
NO.877,3RD MAIN ROAD,
GOKULA EXTN, DIVANARAPALYA,
BENGALURU-560 055.
32 . C.VELU S/O CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
NO.114, 27TH CROSS, TANNERY ROAD,
OLD BAGALUR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 084.
33 . JOTHIRAJAN.S,
S/O LATE SWAMY IYA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
NO 32, NR. JAYALAKSHMI SCHOOL,
RAMASWAMY PALYAM,
BENGALURU-560 033.
34 . B.JAYARAM,
S/O LATE. B DORAISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
NO.81, RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA,
2ND CROSS, BALAJI LAYOUT,
BSK 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 085.
35 . B.NAGESH S/O LATE. D VIJENDRA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
NO.18/1 L.D BLOCK, 1ST MAIN,
7TH CROSS, GANGANAGAR,
R T NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 032.
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC:37845-DB
WA No. 419 of 2023
C/W WA No. 421 of 2023
36 . K.KUMAR RAO,KRISHNOJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
NO.32 4TH CROSS, JAIJAWAN NAGAR,
M.S NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 033.
37 . PADMANABHA POOJARY,
S/O JARU POOJARY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
NO.656, 1ST FLOOR, CHIKKABAZARROAD,
SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 051.
38 . B.VENUGOPAL,
S/O LATE BHOOPATHICHETTAIR,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
NO.317, 6TH CROSS, MARUTHI NAGAR,
NR. BALAJI MEDICALS, HEGGANAHALLI,
ANDHRAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
VISWANEEDAM POST,
BENGALURU-560 091.
39 . M.BALAKRISHNA,
S/O L. NARSIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
NO.3831-143/3,
GREEN GARDEN MARRIPALYAM,
VISHAKAPATNAM-500 018.
ANDHRA PRADESH.
40 . BASAVARAJ.C S/O CHANNACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
NO.11, CHANDRASHEKAR LAYOUT,
SRIGANDHA KAVAL, SUNKADAKATTE,
BENGALURU-560 091.
41 . V.LAKSHMAN RAO S/O APPALA NAIDU,
AGED MAJOR( ABOUT YEARS),
NO 39-21-26/1, MADHAVADHARA,
VIDYANAGAR, VISHAKAPATNAM,
ANDHRA PRADESH-530 037.
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY K B., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37845-DB
WA No. 419 of 2023
C/W WA No. 421 of 2023
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-20186/2016 DATED
24.02.2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WP AS PRAYED
FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These intra-Court appeals seek to call in question a
learned Single Judge's order dated 24.02.2023 whereby
appellant's W.P.Nos.39947/2017 c/w W.P.No.20186/2016
(L-RES) have been dismissed. The challenge in those writ
petitions essentially was to the award dated 28.04.2017
passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in
I.D.No.77/2009 and to the award dated 27.11.2015
passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru in
I.D.No.11/2009. The net effect of these awards and the
impugned order is the reinstatement of the workmen with
full back wages.
2. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
appellant -Management vehemently argued that the
impugned order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37845-DB
WA No. 419 of 2023
C/W WA No. 421 of 2023
voided mainly on two grounds: going by the pleadings of
the parties and evidentiary material placed on the record
of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, there was no case
of retrenchment at all; the workmen themselves were at
fault in not reporting back to duty despite repeated letters
and requests; in any event, having on their own stayed
away from employment, the workmen are not entitled to
the award of full back wages. This aspect, according to
him, having not been properly appreciated, there is error
apparent on the face of the impugned order warranting it
being struck down. In support of his contention, he
presses into service a few decisions of the Apex Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
workmen vehemently opposes the appeals making
submission in justification of the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge and also the orders made by the
Labour Court and the CGIT. He draws our attention to
the fact that out of 47 workmen, 5 have expired and all
others except 10 workmen who are reinstated, have been
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37845-DB
WA No. 419 of 2023
C/W WA No. 421 of 2023
superannuated. He further contends that the intra-court
appeals are not maintainable in view of a Seven Judge
Bench decision of this Court in TAMMANNA vs RENUKA,
ILR 2009 KAR 1207. Even otherwise, according to him,
this Court cannot undertake a deeper examination of the
matter when the CGIT and a learned Single Judge having
examined all the aspects, have granted relief to the
workmen.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the appeal papers, we decline
indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
appellant -Management argues that despite written
requests, the workmen did not turn back to employment
and therefore theirs is not a case of retrenchment at all
and as a consequence, no back wages could have been
awarded, more particularly when they are reinstated, 10
of them actually and others notionally. To substantiate
this point, he draws attention of the Court to the letters
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37845-DB
WA No. 419 of 2023
C/W WA No. 421 of 2023
dated 16.01.2009 and 06.02.2009, whereby, the workmen
were asked to come back to duty and be in the
employment, which they did not accede to. Per contra,
learned counsel appearing for the Trade Union and the
workmen contends that without any justification
whatsoever his clients were removed from service and
they were not permitted to work at all; even otherwise,
they were asked to give a letter of regret as a pre-
condition for being permitted to regain entry to
employment. According to him, it is a text book case of
retrenchment done contrary to law and therefore the back
wages have been rightly awarded.
(b) The letter dated 16.01.2009 i.e., Ex.M-28 sent
by the Management to the workman reads as under:
"You have been unauthorisedly absenting
yourself from duty with effect from 7th
January 2009 to till date. This is a
Newspaper industry, which has precise
deadlines for each operation and the
Management cannot afford to condone
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37845-DB
WA No. 419 of 2023
C/W WA No. 421 of 2023
absenteeism which will cut at the very root
of the survival of the organization.
Due to your unauthorised absence from 7th
January 2009, the Management is
constrained to inform that you have lost
your lien on your appointment/employment.
By a copy of this letter, we are advising the
Accounts Department to settle your account
and you are requested to collect your dues,
if any, on any working day during the
working hours of the office."
The vehement submission of learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Management that the text of the above
letter does not amount to retrenchment is bit difficult to
countenance. If the letter were to indicate only "loss of
lien" on the employment and nothing more, perhaps there
was scope for accepting such an argument more
particularly in view of the decision of the Apex Court in
MOTI RAM DEKA vs G.M., NORTH-EAST FRONTIER
RAILWAY, AIR 1964 SC 600. (This case related to
Service Jurisprudence, is kept in view). However, the text
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37845-DB
WA No. 419 of 2023
C/W WA No. 421 of 2023
of the letter is not that innocuous; it tells the workman
that his dues are being settled and during working hours
of the office, he can collect the same. In construing
letters of the kind, one cannot keep his common sense in
cold storage. The letter should be construed in its plain
meaning as would be drawn by the addressee workman
who may be a stranger to the grammar school. Learned
counsel representing the workmen is more than justified in
contending that this letter has cut the umbilical chord of
employment and thereby brought about the retrenchment,
sans compliance of pre-conditions enacted by law.
(c) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Management drew our attention to the other letters dated
06.02.2009 at Annexure-B series. All they have the
following English text:
"This has reference to your letter dated
21/01/2009 in reply to our letter dated
16.1.2009. The various statements made in
your letter are untrue & incorrect and do not
justify your unauthorized absence.
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37845-DB
WA No. 419 of 2023
C/W WA No. 421 of 2023
However, without prejudice to our right to take
disciplinary action against you, we hereby direct
you to report for duty immediately."
Mr.Kasturi, on the basis of text of these letters, argues
that the workmen were directed to report back for duty
and they having failed to comply with the same, there is
no case for retrenchment compensation; he tells that it is
a case of voluntary abandonment of employment. This
too, we do not agree with. Reasons are not far to seek:
After the letter dated 16.01.2009 was sent, the workmen
had submitted their reply thereto, making certain
allegations as to they being required to give a "regret
letter". Had they given one, that would have been a case
of admission of guilt. Added, the Management's letter
lacks bona fide inasmuch as it does not recall the earlier
letters which mentioned about 'loss of lien' and had
directed the workmen to get their service benefits settled.
These benefits are nothing but the terminal benefits of
employment. Strangely, these letters do not make even a
cursory reference to the earlier letters asking the
employees to take the terminal benefits. The canons of
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37845-DB
WA No. 419 of 2023
C/W WA No. 421 of 2023
labour jurisprudence built precedent by precedent over the
years, require industrial managements to conduct
themselves tall and bona fide qua the workmen who
happened to be a vulnerable section of society, whom the
law seeks to protect. It hardly needs to be stated that
they cannot act as the East India Company of the bye-
gone era. The "hire and fire" policy of yester century has
been reduced to a footnote in the history of Labour Law.
(d) Learned counsel appearing for the Management next
argues that the conduct of workmen coupled with the
letter correspondence of the Management, demonstrates a
prima facie case of shared culpability and therefore full
back wages could not have been awarded. The appellant
is not an ordinary industrial establishment; it is a part of
the Fourth Estate. Mr.Kasturi rightly extolled certain
appreciable events of history with which the appellant is
creditably associated; however, that is not much relevant
to the adjudication of case at hand. The arguable
elements of culpability qua the workmen are too frugal to
be counted. It is more so because the stand sought to be
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37845-DB
WA No. 419 of 2023
C/W WA No. 421 of 2023
canvassed before us, does not earn credence by the
pleadings of the Management taken up before the Labour
Court, the Industrial Tribunal and before the learned
Single Judge. We do not find any justification whatsoever
for the Management to have kept away from the statutory
conciliation proceedings. Learned Single Judge has rightly
made some comments in the impugned order in this
regard. It is not the case of the Management that it has
any financial constraints or such other difficulties that
justify its claim for denial of retrenchment compensation.
The Apex Court time and again has held that the
provisions of 1947 Act inter alia regulating retrenchment
are mandatory vide RAJKUMAR vs. DIRECTOR Of
EDUCATION, (2016) 6 SCC 541. Such a claim cannot be
readily granted just for an askance; a special case needs
to be made out for that and no such case is made out
before us. That being the position, the plea of shared
culpability does not merit countenance.
(e) There is yet another aspect namely, the
maintainability of intra-Court appeals. What were
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37845-DB
WA No. 419 of 2023
C/W WA No. 421 of 2023
challenged before the learned Single Judge were the
outcome of the proceedings held by the Labour Court and
the Industrial Tribunal under the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Obviously, the learned
Single Judge had examined the matter in the limited
supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under
Article 227, the other provision namely, Article 226 having
been ornamentally employed by the Management in the
writ petitions. That being the position, we are afraid that
a deeper examination of the order of the learned Single
Judge cannot be ventured by us, assuming that the
appeals are maintainable. In TAMMANNA supra, it has
been held that ordinarily such appeals are not
maintainable as rightly contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the Labour. Even otherwise, the appeals
being continuation of the original proceedings, they have
the limitations which the learned Single Judge himself had
in deciding the writ petitions. After all, the judicial review
focuses the decision making process and not the decision
itself vide SUSHIL KUMAR vs STATE OF HARYANA,
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37845-DB
WA No. 419 of 2023
C/W WA No. 421 of 2023
(2022) 3 SCC 203. This applies to the writ appeals, as
well. We also noted that only 10 of the workmen are
reinstated, many others having retired by attaining the
age of superannuation and the rest having been laid to
rest in peace, in the long drawn legal battle.
The decisions cited by both the sides have been duly
considered by the learned Single Judge who has crafted
the impugned judgment in an appreciable way and
therefore, we have not burdened our judgment with the
duplication of the said rulings.
In the above circumstances, these appeals being
devoid of merits are liable to be and accordingly are
dismissed, costs having been made easy.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb,bvk
