Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka Power Transmission ... vs Mahananda And Ors on 5 August, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5702
WP No. 202300 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 202300 OF 2021 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
BENGALURU.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (ADM. AND HRD)
THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
BENGALURU.
3. THE GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD., KALABURAGI.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
Digitally signed OPPOSITE PARIWAR HOTEL, MAIN ROAD,
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR KALABURAGI - 585102.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA
ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCE
DEPARTMENT, GESCOM,
KALABURAGI.
5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
THE GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD (ELECTRICAL)
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI.
6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF ENGINEER
GESCOM, BIDAR.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5702
WP No. 202300 of 2021
7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(O AND M DIVISION)
GESCOM, BIDAR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MAHANANDA W/O VISHWANATH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC: JUNIOR ASST./LEDGER MAINTENANCE CLERK,
HUMNABAD SUBDIVISION, GESCOM HUMNABAD,
R/O. FATIMAPUR, POST CHITGUPPA,
TQ.HUMNABAD,
DIST. BIDAR-585401.
2. RAJAPPA S/O NAGANNA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC: JUNIOR ASST. /LEDGER MAINTENANCE CLERK,
SUBDIVISION GESCOM, BIDAR
R/O. H.NO.19-1-222, MAHADEV
COLONY, BIDAR-585401.
3. RAVINDRANATH S/O VAIJINATH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC: JUNIOR ASST./LEDGER MAINTENANCE CLERK,
SUBDIVISION GESCOM BIDAR,
R/O. NIRNA, TQ.HUMNABAD,
DIST.BIDAR-585401.
4. SHARANAPPA S/O NAGASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC: JUNIOR ASST./LEDGER MAINTENANCE CLERK,
SUBDIVISION GESCOM BIDAR,
R/O. SHIVA SHREE NILAYA
NEAR PAPNASH GATE,
SHIVANAGAR (NORTH)
BIDAR-585401.
5. JYOTSIH JAGEE S/O SHREEPAD
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5702
WP No. 202300 of 2021
OCC: JUNIOR ASST./LEDGER MAINTENANCE CLERK,
SUBDIVISION HUMNABAD, DIST.BIDAR,
R/O H.NO.11-226 HUMNABAD,
DIST. BIDAR - 585330.
6. SANDESH S/O VENKATRAO
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCC: JUNIOR ASST./LEDGER MAINTENANCE CLERK,
SUBDIVISION GESCOM BIDAR,
R/O. KRISHNA KUMJ,
SHIVA NAGAR (NORTH)
BIDAR-585401.
7. CHANDRAKANTH S/O BABURAO
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC: JUNIOR ASST./LEDGER MAINTENANCE CLERK,
SUBDIVISION GESCOM BIDAR,
R/O. MARKUNDA- 585227.
8. SHARANABASAPPA S/O SHIVAPUTRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCC: JUNIOR ASST.LEDGER MAINTENANCE CLERK,
AMBALAGA, TQ. ALAND,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADV. FOR R1 TO R8)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO GRANT AN
INTERIM ORDER OF STAY, STAYING THE OPERATION AND
EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
07.04.2021 PASSED IN REFERENCE NO.10(1)(c) 2/2019
(OLD REFERENCE NO.10(1)(c)1/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR, THE CERTIFIED
COPY OF WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5702
WP No. 202300 of 2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. This writ petition is filed challenging the award of the
Labour Court by which the Reference was allowed and it
was held that the respondents therein, i.e., the petitioners
herein, were not justified in not regularizing the workmen
and were directed to continue them by reinstating them
into service into the post that they were holding, along
with all consequential benefits and continuity of service.
2. In paragraph No.16 of the impugned order, it has
been stated as follows:
"16. It has been specifically pleaded by
the first party workmen the matter in WP
Nos.101460-101467/2013 (L-RES) was
challenged by the respondents no.3 by
way of writ appeal, the Writ Appeal
No.200007-200010 of 2016 (L-RES) and
Writ Appeal Nos.200140-200143/2016,
the said appeals came to be dismissed by
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka,
Kalaburagi Bench, Kalaburagi, dated
13-07-2016. After the dismissal of writ
appeals it was again taken up to the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5702
Hon'ble Apex Court by way of Special
Leave Petition in Civil No.26192-
26199/2016 that which came to be
dismissed. Therefore, when admittedly,
similarly placed employees have been
regularized, these first party claimants
ought not to have been singled out. The
respondents ought to have responded to
the representation given by these first
party claimants. On the contrary, they
started contesting the matter. Therefore,
it cannot be said that the approach of the
first party claimants is a speculative
litigation. On the contrary, they are
seeking their legitimate right. Therefore, I
have no hesitation to answer Issue No.1
and Additional Issue No.1 in
negative."
3. In light of the fact that similarly placed employees
were granted the benefit of reinstatement and continuity
of service by the learned Single Judge, which has been
confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal
Nos.200007 to 200010 of 2016 along connected matters
and which has further been confirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26192-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5702
26199 of 2016, there can be no interference in the
impugned award, since the reasoning in those proceedings
would also equally apply to this writ petition.
4. It is however sought to be contended that a Division
Bench of this Court in W.A. No.200147 of 2022 has
accepted the contention of the KPTCL and has modified a
similar order of the learned Single Judge and directed the
Corporation only to reconsider the petitioners' request for
regularization from the date on which they completed ten
years of service.
5. It may be relevant to state here that in this very
decision, the Division Bench took note of the order passed
in W.P. Nos.101460-101467 of 2013, which was confirmed
in Writ Appeal Nos.200007-10 of 2016 and the order of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Nos.26192-26199 of 2016 and has concurred with the
view taken therein.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5702
6. The Division Bench has also observed that the order
of the Supreme Court cannot be read in the manner that
the Corporation would like to read it.
7. It may also be pertinent to state here that in the
case dealt with by the Division Bench, the petitioners
therein had sought for regularization and the said request
was denied and as a consequence, the writ petitions were
filed.
8. However, in the instant case, just as the other set of
employees, the petitioners had also approached the
Labour Court and the Labour Court has rightly followed the
order passed by this Court, which has been confirmed by
the Supreme Court and therefore, the argument sought to
be advanced by the KPTCL by placing reliance on the
decision of the Division Bench in W.A. No.200147 of 2022,
cannot be accepted.
9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms
of the order passed in WP Nos.101460 to 101467 of 2013
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5702
and which is confirmed in writ appeals and the Special
Leave Petition.
10. The impugned award shall be implemented within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
11. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
RK
CT: VD
